Kenya Case Law

Republic v John Ngugi Karanja

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Traffic Case E946 of 2026

The Mombasa Magistrate's Court convicted a lorry driver of causing death by dangerous driving after finding he left a stationary trailer partly on a night-time roadway, creating an obstruction into which the deceased's vehicle collided.

• Causing death by dangerous driving
• Dangerous obstruction of roadway by stationary commercial vehicle
• Causation in road traffic fatalities
• Objective assessment of dangerous conduct
• Admissibility and weight of investigating officer evidence
• Causing-death-by-dangerous-driving

George Shitandi v National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) & another

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E352 of 2026

Judge

["D Mburu"]

The High Court struck out George Shitandi’s petition challenging NTSA’s automated traffic fines system, holding the matter was barred by res judicata.

• Res judicata
• Issue estoppel
• Conservatory orders
• Automated traffic enforcement
• Judicial authority
• Separation of powers

Kivandi v Republic

Kivandi v Republic (Criminal Revision E017 of 2026)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E017 of 2026

Judge

["SM Mohochi"]

The High Court revised an illegal traffic sentence, reducing a Kshs.500,000 fine to Kshs.50,000 while leaving the guilty plea conviction intact.

• Illegal sentence beyond statutory maximum
• Motor vehicle exceeding prescribed dimensions
• High court revision under sections 362 and 364 criminal procedure code
• Default sentence in lieu of fine
• Plea of guilty conviction undisturbed
• Criminal-revision

Mbugua v Mugada

Mbugua v Mugada (Commercial Case E4756 of 2025) [2026] SCC 226 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E4756 of 2025

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The applicant did not demonstrate any statutory ground for review. His complaints about ownership of the motor vehicle, the effect of registration, the alleged payment of Kshs.500,000, and the concepts of detinue and conversion all required re-evaluation of evidence and therefore could not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The proper remedy, if he believed the court erred in law or fact, was appeal, not review. Because the review failed, there was no basis for stay of execution or for setting aside and substituting the judgment.

Source excerpt

• Review of judgment
• Stay of execution
• Error apparent on the face of the record
• Ownership of motor vehicle
• Registration as prima facie evidence of ownership
• Warranty/passsing of property in goods

Republic v Motor Vehicle Examiner (NTSA-Thika) & 2 others; Swaleh (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Motor Vehicle Examiner (NTSA-Thika) & 2 others; Swaleh (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E007 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12005 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Application E007 of 2024

Judge

["EM Muriithi"]

The court held that the 1st Respondent’s officer committed procedural impropriety by refusing to consider the TIMS data, declining to give reasons, and insisting only on his own view. Because the vehicle had a valid inspection certificate until 15/5/2024, the declaration that it had expired, the removal of number plates, and the ensuing traffic charges were ultra vires, illegal, irrational and disproportionate, violating Article 47 and justifying certiorari.

Source excerpt

• Certiorari
• Article 47 fair administrative action
• Procedural impropriety
• Ultra vires
• Roadside vehicle inspection
• Traffic prosecution

Mbaisi v Republic

Mbaisi v Republic (Criminal Revision E208 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11944 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E208 of 2025

Judge

["E Ominde"]

The court held that section 49(1) of the Traffic Act criminalizes the manner of driving as a single offence on a given occasion, so splitting one careless-driving incident into 14 counts based on the number of injured occupants was impermissible replication that exposed the applicant to double jeopardy and a sentence beyond what one properly framed count could lawfully attract. The convictions on counts 2 to 14 were quashed, count 1 was retained, and the sentence was substituted with the statutory maximum fine for one first offence.

Source excerpt

• Revisionary jurisdiction
• Duplicity/replication of charges
• Unit of prosecution
• Plea of guilty and defective charge
• Double jeopardy
• Sentencing legality

Manyara v Republic

Manyara v Republic (Criminal Revision E565 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11811 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E565 of 2025

Judge

["RM Mwongo"]

The application failed because the sentences were lawful and within statutory limits, and the imprisonment terms imposed in default of payment of fines could not legally be ordered to run concurrently; there was likewise no basis to reduce the fines, which were just and consistent with the Traffic Act.

Source excerpt

• Revisionary jurisdiction
• Concurrent versus consecutive sentences
• Fines and default imprisonment
• Traffic offences sentencing
• Judicial discretion in sentencing

Republic v Gachanja (Traffic Case E073 of 2025)

Republic v Gachanja (Traffic Case E073 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 459 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Traffic Case E073 of 2025

Judge

["GK Waithira"]

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle, that the deceased died from injuries sustained in the collision, and that the accused drove dangerously at night on a steep road while failing to maintain control and avoid a pedestrian she had seen ahead, which fell below the standard expected of a competent driver.

Source excerpt

• Causing death by dangerous driving
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Dangerous driving standard
• Post-mortem evidence
• Identification of driver
• Sentencing consequences under traffic act

Kipsat v Republic & another

Kipsat v Republic & another (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E053 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11206 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application E053 of 2026

Judge

["C Akaigwa"]

The application was premature because the trial had not commenced, no prosecution evidence had been called, and the Applicant did not show that he had sought and been denied the disputed disclosure materials. The charge sheet disclosed an offence known to law, and the Applicant raised factual and evidential issues that must be resolved by the trial court, not by pre-trial intervention of the High Court. No abuse of process, mala fides, or constitutional breach was demonstrated to justify stay or termination.

Source excerpt

• Prematurity of application
• Stay or termination of criminal proceedings
• Abuse of process
• Disclosure in criminal proceedings
• Right to fair trial
• Right to fair administrative action

Osur v Attorney General (On behalf of the National Police Service) & another

Osur v Attorney General (On behalf of the National Police Service) & another (Petition E018 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11373 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E018 of 2024

Judge

["JL Tamar"]

The respondents unlawfully and arbitrarily detained the petitioner’s motor vehicle for 41 days without any charge, statutory basis, or lawful explanation, and conditioned release on payment to a private breakdown service, thereby abusing police power and violating the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 40 and 46; compensation was therefore warranted but limited to KES 100,000 as proportionate constitutional damages.

Source excerpt

• Unlawful detention of motor vehicle
• Abuse of police power
• Violation of property rights
• Violation of consumer rights
• Constitutional damages
• Arbitrary deprivation of property