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
The High Court at Kerugoya held that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case in a murder charge, and acquitted the accused at case-to-answer stage.
The court acquitted John Paul Otieno of breaking into a shop and handling stolen property, finding the prosecution had not proved breaking or linked him to the specific phone beyond reasonable doubt.
Ndonyo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E128 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13133 (KLR) (25 August 2026) (Ruling)
The trial court lawfully considered the applicant's pending similar case and the prosecution's allegations, but those matters did not amount to compelling reasons for continued denial of bail. The applicant's demonstrated compliance with bond terms in the other case, the favourable pre-bail report, and the absence of evidence of absconding, interference with witnesses, or breach of bond conditions showed that the risks identified could be managed by reasonable conditions. The refusal of bail was therefore set aside.
Source excerpt
Republic v Maina alias Kingangi & another (Criminal Case E065 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13016 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Ruling)
The prosecution failed to lay a proper factual and legal foundation for cancelling or varying the bail. The alleged witness interference was unsupported by direct evidence linking the accused to the incident, the witness did not authenticate the allegations in court, the OB report alone was insufficient, and no investigative findings were produced. The defence also failed to provide material justifying reduction of bond. Therefore, the existing bail terms were upheld, with a warning that any future contact with prosecution witnesses or return to the locus in quo would expose the accused to ca…
Source excerpt
Tahalil v Director of Public Prosecution & another (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E104 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13036 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court declined to extend the stay orders because the complainant was elderly and willing to testify, no prejudice would be suffered by the accused if she appeared in the trial court, and the applicant could still challenge her evidence through cross-examination and raise identity issues before the trial court; the lower court trial was therefore allowed to proceed without delay.
Source excerpt
Republic v Mawira & another (Criminal Case E543 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 509 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution failed to link the accused persons to the alleged breaking and theft beyond reasonable doubt. There was no eye-witness, the entry damage was not proved with certainty, the recovered beans were not positively identified as the school’s beans, the alleged confession was not shown to comply with section 25A of the Evidence Act, and the doctrine of recent possession failed because possession and ownership of the recovered beans were not proved. The accused were therefore entitled to acquittal on both the main and alternative counts.
Source excerpt
Republic v Shitanda (Criminal Case 55 of 2015) [2026] KEHC 12521 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved the deceased died and that death resulted from unlawful assault, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was the assailant. The evidence identifying him was weak, hearsay-based, and speculative; key family witnesses were not called and the recovered panga was not forensically linked to the Accused. The circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain excluding other family members as possible perpetrators.
Source excerpt
Kivagi v Republic (Criminal Application E016 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1512 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant failed to explain a delay of more than seven years in an affidavit, and even the explanation given in submissions was not credible or sufficiently persuasive. The delay was inordinate, the respondent would be prejudiced, and the case did not justify the exercise of discretion to extend time.
Source excerpt
KImaiyo v Republic (Criminal Application E043 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1553 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the applicant’s omission to expressly pray for extension of time was excusable because he was a lay, unrepresented litigant and the tenor of his submissions clearly sought that relief. The delay was adequately explained by his mistaken belief that prison authorities would file the appeal, the intended appeal was arguable, and the respondent would suffer no substantial prejudice. The court therefore exercised its discretion under rule 4 to grant leave to appeal out of time.
Source excerpt
Republic v Islam (Criminal Case E121 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 370 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because conspiracy under section 4B(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act requires proof of an agreement between at least two persons, yet the accused was charged alone and no admissible evidence established a co-conspirator or a common unlawful purpose. The charge was therefore fatally defective and the evidence recovered from the scene could not cure that defect.
Source excerpt
Explore more
