Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Republic v Wafula & another (Criminal Case 1034 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 13289 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Judgment)
The court acquitted accused 2 and 3 on all counts after finding the prosecution had not proved housebreaking, stealing, or malicious damage beyond reasonable doubt.
Republic v Gathugu alias Macha (Criminal Case E082 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 13062 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the accused was proved to have participated in an unlawful assault on the deceased together with Kamnyo, but the prosecution did not prove malice aforethought. The injuries, the postmortem findings, the drinking context, and the revenge-driven confrontation supported manslaughter, not murder. The date discrepancy in the information did not prejudice the accused or render the trial unfair, because he understood the case and mounted a defence.
Source excerpt
Republic v Busienei alias Ngori (Criminal Case E018 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12875 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Sentence)
The court held that a custodial sentence was necessary because the accused carried out a sustained and fatal assault, the offence caused irreversible loss of life, and a non-custodial term would not meet the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and community protection; however, life imprisonment would be excessive given the guilty plea, first-offender status, and acceptance of responsibility, so a ten-year term was proportionate.
Source excerpt
Republic v Mulwa alias Mboi (Criminal Case 19 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 12333 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)
The court held that although the two clans reconciled and customary rites were performed, the offender remained individually culpable. Given that he was a first offender, remorseful, young, and had been in custody since 6 June 2023, a custodial sentence was still warranted. Applying section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appropriate sentence was seven years' imprisonment backdated to the date of arrest/custody.
Source excerpt
Republic v Morara (Criminal Case E004 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 12109 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)
The court held that although the offender was a first offender who pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, benefited from family reconciliation, and had spent more than four years in custody, the unlawful loss of life and the need for denunciation and deterrence still required a custodial sentence. Balancing the mitigation, the aggravation, the pre-sentence report, and the mandatory effect of section 333(2), the court imposed seven years' imprisonment backdated to 2 February 2022.
Source excerpt
Republic v Okhola (Criminal Case E032 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12020 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)
The court held that, given the accused's prior conviction, lack of remorse, the aggravating circumstances concerning a vulnerable 16-year-old victim with mental challenges, and the adverse pre-sentence report, a stiff custodial sentence was warranted, and the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment.
Source excerpt
Republic v Hussein (Criminal Case E011 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 407 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently took the complainant’s money. No witness saw the theft, the case rested on suspicion alone, and there was no cogent evidence directly linking the accused to the alleged stealing; therefore the charge could not stand.
Source excerpt
Republic v Oketch & another (Criminal Case E557 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 404 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved that Kshs. 223,250, being the complainant's Mpesa float, existed and was taken. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 established a deliberate deception using a phone saved as Safaricom Customer Care though it was an Airtel number, immediately followed by the withdrawal. The circumstances irresistibly pointed to the accused's fraudulent involvement, and his explanation of a lottery win was rejected as implausible and unsupported. The ingredients of stealing under section 268(1) as read with section 275 of the Penal Code were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E143 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 369 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally and unlawfully destroyed the complainant’s Nokia C22 phone and threatened to kill her, including repeated statements and physical pursuit that created a real and immediate fear of violence. The offensive conduct count failed because the conduct occurred inside a private home and not in a public place or public gathering as required by section 94 of the Penal Code.
Source excerpt
Republic v Thoya (Criminal Case E043 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 408 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court accepted that the accused caused the complainant's injury when he pushed him during the altercation, and that the resulting wound amounted to actual bodily harm; therefore the offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the accused's claim that the injury was accidental.
Source excerpt
Explore more
