Cohen murder case: Appeal Court rejects Sarah Wairimu's fresh bid for bail

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

What you need to know:

- Wairimu is accused of murdering her husband, Dutch businessman and tycoon Tob Cohen, on the night of July 19 and 20, 2019.

- Appeal Court judges ruled that granting Wairimu bail before hearing her appeal would amount to deciding the appeal in advance.

Businesswoman Sarah Wairimu Cohen will remain in custody as she awaits trial over the murder of her husband, Dutch businessman Tob Cohen, after the Court of Appeal declined to release her on bail.

Instead, a bench of three judges directed that her appeal against the refusal to grant bail be heard on a priority basis, saying there was no reason it should not be fast-tracked. The murder trial is pending before the Kibera High Court.

The bench, comprising Justices Patrick Kiage, Jamila Mohammed and Weldon Korir on July 31 2026 ruled that granting Wairimu bail before hearing her appeal would amount to deciding the appeal in advance.

Wairimu is accused of murdering her husband, Dutch businessman and tycoon Tob Cohen, on the night of July 19 and 20, 2019. She has denied the charge and is on trial before the High Court in Kibera.

The latest ruling is another setback in her long-running battle to regain her freedom after repeated attempts to secure bail.

Court records show Ms Wairimu is being held at Lang'ata Women's Remand Prison pending the hearing of the murder case. She had previously made several unsuccessful applications for bail before the trial court, the latest being dismissed by High Court Judge Diana Kavedza on July 8, 2025.

The High Court declined to release her after finding there were compelling reasons to keep her in custody. Among the reasons cited were fears that she could interfere with witnesses, tamper with the crime scene and flee the country before the conclusion of the trial.

Unhappy with that decision, Ms Wairimu moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the ruling and secure her release pending the hearing of her appeal.

She argued that the High Court had wrongly assessed the evidence and applied the wrong legal test in refusing her bail.

Ms Wairimu further told the appellate court that the murder trial could take years to conclude, meaning she risked spending an unreasonably long period in custody before any determination of her guilt or innocence.

She maintained that she had previously complied with court orders whenever she had been released on bail and insisted she was not a flight risk. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application.

In an affidavit filed before the Court of Appeal, investigators alleged that Ms Wairimu had, either directly or through other people, contacted protected witnesses and interfered with evidence intended for use during the trial.

The prosecution also maintained that some of the witnesses were Ms Wairimu's former employees and remained vulnerable to intimidation if she was released.

Investigators further alleged that Ms Wairimu obtained a second passport through false information while her original passport was already being held by the investigating officer.

According to the prosecution, that conduct heightened fears that she could leave the country if released on bail. During the hearing, Ms Wairimu's lawyer traced the history of the case, telling the judges that she had initially been charged with murder in 2019 and released on bail.

The lawyer said the Director of Public Prosecutions later withdrew the case, leading to her discharge in November 2022. After returning to her matrimonial home, Ms Wairimu was summoned to the DPP's office in January 2023 before being charged afresh, leading to the current proceedings before the Kibera High Court.

The prosecution urged the court to uphold the High Court's decision. State counsel argued that the trial judge had correctly found compelling reasons to deny bail, including the risk of witness interference and the possibility that Ms Wairimu could abscond.

The prosecution also defended the High Court against claims of bias, saying no evidence had been presented to justify such allegations. The judges observed that the law governing bail pending appeal generally applies to convicted persons who are already serving sentences.

The judges noted that Ms Wairimu's situation was different because she has not been convicted. Instead, she is appealing against a decision refusing to grant her bail before the start of her trial.

The judges said they could not determine whether the High Court was right or wrong at this stage because that question will only be answered when the substantive appeal is heard.

Granting her request, they said, would effectively dispose of the appeal before arguments are fully presented.

"We cannot do so for the reason that to do so would be to grant the appeal before it is heard," the judges said in the ruling.

The bench reached the same conclusion on Wairimu's request to be released on bail pending the appeal.

According to the judges, allowing that request would equally amount to deciding the central issue before the appeal itself is heard and determined. However, the judges agreed with Wairimu on one issue.

They found no reason why the appeal challenging the High Court's refusal to grant bail should remain pending for a long period.

"We opine that this is a prayer that is for granting as there is no reason why the appeal, if filed, should not be expedited for hearing," the judges said.

The Court of Appeal consequently dismissed Wairimu's application to set aside the High Court ruling and declined to admit her to bail.

Instead, it ordered that her appeal be processed and heard on an expedited basis, meaning the question of whether she should be released before trial will now be determined by the appellate court after a full hearing of the appeal.

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.