Esheria Kenya Case Law
Sign in
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Kenya Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Kenya case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Kenya decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 13026 (KLR)

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
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12157 (KLR)

Mwandama v Republic

Mwandama v Republic (Criminal Revision E004 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12157 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E004 of 2026
Judge
["JK Biomdo"]

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the sentence had already been dealt with by another High Court judge of concurrent jurisdiction; revision under sections 362 and 364 CPC and Article 165(6) cannot be used to review or vary a co-equal court’s decision, and the proper recourse lies in the Court of Appeal.

Source excerpt

  • Sentence revision
  • Concurrent sentences
  • Jurisdiction of high court
  • Revision of decisions of concurrent jurisdiction
  • Section 333(2) credit for time spent in custody
  • Non-custodial sentence/commutation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12128 (KLR)

Kahaso v Republic

Kahaso v Republic (Criminal Revision E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12128 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E001 of 2026
Judge
["M Thande"]

The court held that the trial court failed to comply with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because it did not indicate that it had taken into account the applicant's pre-trial custody. That omission warranted revision of the sentence and the sentence was ordered to run from the date of arrest, 31 January 2025.

Source excerpt

  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Credit for time spent in custody
  • Concurrent sentences
  • Revision of sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12394 (KLR)

Juma v Republic

Juma v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E072 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12394 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E072 of 2026
Judge
["JM Omido"]

The trial court failed to properly credit the applicant with the 113 days spent in custody during trial as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the sentence therefore required review by adjusting the commencement date to reflect that custody period.

Source excerpt

  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Credit for time spent in custody
  • Defilement sentencing
  • Concurrent sentences
  • Sentence review
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEMC 364 (KLR)

Republic v Esike

Republic v Esike (Criminal Case E281 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 364 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Sentence)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Criminal Case E281 of 2026
Judge
["AZ Ogange"]

The court held that the accused's guilty plea and acceptance of the pre-sentence report were mitigating, but the repeated targeting of his own mother, the family fear described in the report, and the need to protect the complainant and rehabilitate the offender justified custodial sentences. A non-custodial sentence would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences or protect the victim.

Source excerpt

  • Stealing
  • Offensive conduct
  • Guilty plea
  • Pre-sentence report
  • Concurrent sentences
  • Custodial sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12396 (KLR)

Nyawara v Republic

Nyawara v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E069 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12396 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E069 of 2026
Judge
["JM Omido"]

The applicant had spent 147 days in custody during trial, the trial court did not properly credit that period, and section 333(2) required a proportional reduction of sentence; the sentence was therefore reviewed downward by 147 days on each count.

Source excerpt

  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code credit for time spent in custody
  • Concurrent sentences
  • Sentence review
  • Remand custody deduction
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12318 (KLR)

Omulama & another v Republic

Omulama & another v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E097 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12318 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Application E097 of 2024
Judge
["JN Kamau"]

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the consolidated resentencing applications and that the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to mitigate because sentencing in robbery with violence cases must be individualized. However, the court was not prepared to determine final sentences immediately because the record lacked prison recommendation letters and programme certificates, and it declined to order concurrent sentences where the convictions arose from different courts and different dates. The court therefore granted a limited resentencing process, directed for further repo…

Source excerpt

  • Robbery with violence
  • Death sentence
  • Resentencing
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Mitigation
  • Concurrent sentences
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12314 (KLR)

Omulama v Republic

Omulama v Republic (Criminal Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12314 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Petition E005 of 2025
Judge
["JN Kamau"]

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the consolidated resentencing application, and that the Petitioner should first file prison recommendation material and rehabilitation certificates, after which probation would file a pre-sentence report. The court declined to order concurrent sentences because the convictions arose from different courts and different dates. It also stated that section 333(2) would be considered at the resentencing stage, if any.

Source excerpt

  • Robbery with violence
  • Mandatory death sentence
  • Resentencing
  • Mitigation
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Concurrent sentences
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11695 (KLR)

Gitari v Republic

Gitari v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E078 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11695 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E078 of 2025
Judge
["RL Korir"]

The court held that although the applicant had been convicted of serious offences, her rehabilitation, the fact that she had served more than half of the concurrent three-year sentence, the presence of a child with her in prison, another minor child at home, and a probation report recommending a non-custodial outcome made the application merited. The sentence was therefore revised and the applicant was released to serve the balance of her term on probation, subject to her not being otherwise lawfully held.

Source excerpt

  • Bad cheque offence
  • Forgery and fraud
  • Non-custodial sentence
  • Probation
  • Concurrent sentences
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12230 (KLR)

Karwigi v Republic

Karwigi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E076 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12230 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E076 of 2025
Judge
["DKN Magare"]

The appellant's plea was unequivocal because the charge and facts were read to him in Kiswahili, he elected to change his plea, admitted the facts as true, and no material irregularity or incapacity was shown. The sentence of 4 years on the main count was not manifestly excessive given the burglary at night, the limited recovery, and the appellant's antecedents, but the alternative count could not stand once conviction on the principal burglary count was entered.

Source excerpt

  • Burglary
  • Handling stolen goods
  • Plea taking
  • Unequivocal plea of guilty
  • Appeals from guilty plea
  • Concurrent sentences
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.