Kenya Case Law

Auma v County Government of Kisumu

Auma v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5324 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024

Judge

["EK Wabwoto"]

The deductions of Kshs. 8,459.12 VAT, Kshs. 24,531.45 withholding tax and Kshs. 147.19 procurement levy were unlawful because a decree is not income, not a taxable supply and not a procurement payment; the taxed costs were properly part of the sum owed under the order already found to have been disobeyed; however, because the respondent had paid the principal sum and the shortfall was modest, the contempt was treated as purged in part only and the respondent was given a final thirty-day opportunity to pay the balance before sentencing.

Source excerpt

• Mandamus against county government
• Execution against government
• Withholding tax on decrees
• Vat on court awards
• Procurement levy on judgment debt
• Accounting officer under government proceedings act

Kinyili v Republic

Kinyili v Republic (Criminal Revision E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13019 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E001 of 2026

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The court held that it could not use revision as a substitute for appeal to generally reduce a lawful sentence on mercy grounds, but it could intervene to ensure compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the trial court failed to account for the applicant's remand custody, the sentence must be computed by crediting 2 years, 3 months and 2 days spent in custody.

Source excerpt

• Revision
• Jurisdiction
• Section 333(2) cpc
• Remand custody credit
• Attempted defilement
• Sexual offences act

In re Estate of the Late Ondieki (Deceased)

In re Estate of the Late Ondieki (Deceased) (Succession Cause E015 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12908 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Succession Cause E015 of 2024

Judge

["Sifuna Nixon"]

The court found that the summons, supporting affidavits, distribution schedule, and signed consent by all beneficiaries justified confirmation of the grant, and therefore confirmed it and ordered completion of administration within 90 days.

Source excerpt

• Confirmation of grant
• Distribution of estate
• Consent by beneficiaries
• Transmission of property
• Issuance of titles

Bright v Republic (Revision Case E050 of 2026)

Bright v Republic (Revision Case E050 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13292 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Revision Case E050 of 2026

Judge

["AM Muteti"]

The High Court declined to revise bail terms, holding that Ksh 500,000 with two sureties was not excessive given the seriousness of the charges and the applicant’s flight risk.

• Revision jurisdiction
• Review of bail terms
• Reasonableness of bail
• Foreign accused person and flight risk
• Supervisory jurisdiction of the high court
• Bail-and-bond

Kahia v Director of Criminal Investigations & 3 others

Kahia v Director of Criminal Investigations & 3 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E466 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13294 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E466 of 2024

Judge

["AM Muteti"]

The High Court declined to review its earlier anticipatory bail ruling, holding that no error on the face of the record or new matter had been shown.

• Review of court ruling
• Anticipatory bail
• Abuse of criminal process
• Harassment by police
• Jurisdiction over land ownership disputes
• Status quo and protective orders

Mutuvi v Republic

Mutuvi v Republic (Criminal Revision E024 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13040 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E024 of 2026

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The court found that the original release conditions, though not unreasonable in principle, required review because the applicant’s liberty had been compromised by the prolonged inability to trace the lower court and DPP files, the prosecution did not oppose the application, and justice required adjustment of the conditions to reflect the circumstances while still securing attendance.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Revision
• Bail and bond terms
• Review of court orders
• Missing court records
• Appeal and retrial obstruction

Katumo v Republic

Katumo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E050 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13026 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E050 of 2025

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The application failed because the applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient basis for the delay, and in any event the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal; that jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal. The request was therefore dismissed, though the court directed that judgment and proceedings, if not already supplied, be supplied.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Extension of time to appeal
• Jurisdiction of appellate court
• Supply of proceedings
• Concurrent sentences

Muli v Republic

Muli v Republic (Criminal Appeal E005 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13035 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E005 of 2026

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

[2026] KEHC 13035 (KLR)

Source excerpt

Mulumbi v AW alias AW (Minor Suing Through Her Mother and Next Friend JKD)

Mulumbi v AW alias AW (Minor Suing Through Her Mother and Next Friend JKD) (Civil Appeal E085 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13064 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E085 of 2025

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

[2026] KEHC 13064 (KLR)

Source excerpt

• Civil appeal
• Judgment

Mbati v Republic

Mbati v Republic (Criminal Revision E228 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13020 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E228 of 2024

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The application failed because the High Court’s revision jurisdiction is limited to legality, correctness, and propriety under the Criminal Procedure Code, and no appeal or illegality in sentence was shown. Compensation to the victim’s family did not amount to new compelling evidence or a ground for resentencing, and the court had become functus officio on sentence.

Source excerpt

• Revision of sentence
• Jurisdiction
• Functus officio
• Compensation to victim's family
• Resentencing
• Appeal versus revision