Kenya Case Law

Omondi v Republic

Omondi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E095 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1515 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E095 of 2023

Judge

["PO Kiage", "RB Ngetich", "S Radido"]

The High Court erred in law because it upheld convictions for corruptly receiving benefits arising from the same transactions after the appellant had been acquitted of the antecedent solicitation counts. Binding precedent required the receiving counts to fall with the solicitation counts on these facts.

Source excerpt

• Corruptly receiving a benefit
• Corrupt solicitation
• Second appeal jurisdiction
• Concurrent findings of fact
• Binding precedent

Gakono v Republic

Gakono v Republic (Criminal Appeal E155 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1645 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E155 of 2023

Judge

["RB Ngetich", "PO Kiage", "S Radido"]

The appeal failed because it was a second appeal confined to matters of law, yet the complaints on identification, penetration, witness credibility, and sentence were factual issues. The Appellant did not show any legal misdirection by the two lower courts, nor any basis for disturbing their concurrent findings that the minors identified him and that penetration was medically corroborated. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to revisit the sentence severity and dismissed the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Identification evidence
• Proof of penetration
• Credibility of witnesses
• Second appeals
• Concurrent findings of fact

BNS v Republic

BNS v Republic (Criminal Appeal E146 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1622 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E146 of 2023

Judge

["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The appeal failed because the DNA evidence was properly admitted, the alleged medical inconsistencies were immaterial to proof of incest, no violation of fair trial rights or prejudice was demonstrated, and the life sentence was lawful under the Sexual Offences Act; the concurrent findings of the two lower courts were supported by solid evidence and could not be disturbed on second appeal.

Source excerpt

• Incest
• Child sexual offence
• Dna evidence admissibility
• Medical evidence contradictions
• Fair trial rights
• Sentence legality

RI v Republic

RI v Republic (Criminal Appeal E024 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1669 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E024 of 2024

Judge

["AK Murgor", "KI Laibuta", "GW Ngenye-Macharia"]

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's complaints on voir dire, age proof, credibility, and contradictions were new points of law raised for the first time on second appeal and were therefore incompetent, while the only surviving ground, that the defence was ignored, was disproved by the record, which showed that both lower courts considered and rejected it as an afterthought.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Age of complainant
• Voir dire examination
• Second appeal limits
• Concurrent findings of fact
• Consideration of defence

Juma v Republic

Juma v Republic (Criminal Appeal E034 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1304 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E034 of 2024

Judge

["AK Murgor", "KI Laibuta", "JM Ngugi"]

The appeal failed because the record showed the complainant was born on 27 March 2011 and was therefore 11 years old at the time of the offence, bringing the case squarely within section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. The other elements of defilement were concurrently found proved on credible evidence, and no legal error justified interference on second appeal. The statutory life sentence under section 8(2) remained lawful and constitutional.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Age of complainant
• Penetration
• Identification by recognition
• Second appeal scope
• Concurrent findings of fact

Kinuthia v Republic

Kinuthia v Republic (Criminal Appeal 40 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1092 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 40 of 2019

Judge

["M Ngugi", "PM Gachoka", "MB Kairaria"]

The Court found that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court properly established the complainant's age, penetration, and the appellant's identity, and that the appellant's defence was considered and rejected. It further held that the mandatory life sentence was lawful and constitutional for defilement of a child aged eleven years or less. The appeal therefore failed on both conviction and sentence.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Proof of age
• Proof of penetration
• Identification evidence
• Alibi defence
• Mandatory life sentence

Olutukai v Kingori

Olutukai v Kingori (Civil Appeal E229 of 2024) [2026] KECA 970 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal E229 of 2024

Judge

["MS Asike-Makhandia", "HA Omondi", "LK Kimaru"]

The appeal failed because the courts below properly treated the dispute as one of land identification and occupancy of public land, not a pure boundary-fixing dispute. The re-survey was lawful and necessary in light of conflicting evidence, the eviction order was a consequential and permissible order to protect public land, and the first appellate court had correctly re-evaluated the evidence without legal error. No basis existed for interference with the concurrent findings.

Source excerpt

• Boundary disputes
• Survey and re-survey
• Eviction and demolition orders
• Registered title versus public land
• Scope of second appeal
• Locus standi

Kamau v Mbugua

Kamau v Mbugua (Civil Appeal 207 of 2019) [2026] KECA 956 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal 207 of 2019

Judge

["SG Kairu", "J Mohammed", "AO Muchelule"]

The appellant failed to prove fraud or a customary trust, and the attack based on spousal consent could not succeed because the transaction predated the relevant statutory regime; the admitted sale, payment, and possession made the respondent’s interest legally and equitably defensible, so no error of law was shown on second appeal.

Source excerpt

• Second appeal
• Fraud
• Customary trust
• Spousal consent
• Land control board consent
• Indefeasibility of title

Sony Corporation v Sony Holdings Limited

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal 399 of 2019

Judge

["SG Kairu", "M Ngugi", "P Nyamweya"]

The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal over trade mark registration of “Sony Holdings,” holding that SONY was not proved to be well known in Kenya.

• Trade mark opposition
• Well-known marks
• Likelihood of confusion
• Second appeal scope
• Concurrent findings of fact
• Section 14 trade marks act

M’Bagine v Nyaga

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal 172 of 2019

Judge

["W Karanja", "J Mohammed", "LK Kimaru"]

The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal over a Fatal Accidents Act dependency claim, holding that statutory dependency and loss of dependency were not proved on the record.

• Second appeal jurisdiction
• Fatal accidents act dependency claim
• Proving statutory dependency
• Loss of dependency assessment
• Concurrent findings of fact
• Multiplier/multiplicand approach