Kenya Case Law

Odari v Republic

Odari v Republic (Criminal Petition E012B of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12599 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Sentence)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Petition E012B of 2023

Judge

["JN Kamau"]

The court found that the petitioner had demonstrated substantial rehabilitation, remorse, and positive prison conduct, and that the rehabilitative purpose of sentencing had largely been achieved. Balancing deterrence, retribution, denunciation, and reintegration, the court substituted the death sentence with 30 years’ imprisonment and ordered that the remand period from 31 March 2012 to 4 April 2013 be credited under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Source excerpt

• Resentencing
• Death sentence substitution
• Mitigation
• Section 333(2) credit for time served
• Rehabilitation
• Pre-sentence report

Kimani v Republic

Kimani v Republic (Criminal Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9102 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E001 of 2026

Judge

["DR Kavedza"]

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, acting with others, robbed the complainant while armed and used actual violence by shooting him, with identification supported by streetlighting, a properly conducted parade, and recovery of stolen property; however, the death sentence was excessive in the circumstances and was substituted with a 30-year prison term backdated to the date of arrest under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Source excerpt

• Robbery with violence
• Identification evidence
• Recent possession
• First appeal re-evaluation of evidence
• Death sentence substitution
• Section 333(2) cpc

Mutuma v Republic

Mutuma v Republic (Criminal Appeal 38 of 2017) [2026] KECA 1008 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 38 of 2017

Judge

["S ole Kantai", "JW Lessit", "A Ali-Aroni"]

The conviction for murder was upheld because the circumstantial evidence was complete and irresistibly pointed to the appellant: the infant was left in his house, he was the last adult with the child, the child disappeared, he gave implausible and inconsistent explanations, he led police to the shallow grave, and the medical evidence showed fatal intentional head injuries inconsistent with an accident. However, the death sentence was interfered with and substituted with a determinate term of 25 years’ imprisonment from the date of arrest.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Circumstantial evidence
• Last seen doctrine
• Malice aforethought
• Failure to call witnesses
• Missing murder weapon

Paul Kithinji Marigu v Republic

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 71 of 2019

Judge

["J Mohammed", "LK Kimaru", "AO Muchelule"]

The Court of Appeal upheld a murder conviction, finding malice aforethought was proved and intoxication and provocation unavailable, but reduced the death sentence to 30 years.

• Murder
• Malice aforethought
• Intoxication defence
• Provocation
• Dying declaration
• Identification by recognition

Boniface Barasa v Republic

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal E003 of 2020

Judge

["DK Musinga", "PO Kiage", "GV Odunga"]

The Court of Appeal upheld Boniface Barasa’s murder conviction, rejecting provocation and malice aforethought challenges, but substituted the death sentence with 25 years’ imprisonment.

• Murder
• Provocation
• Malice aforethought
• Medical evidence
• Appeal against conviction
• Death sentence substitution

Kambi & another v Republic

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 5 of 2019

Judge

W Karanja, J Mohammed, AO Muchelule

The Court of Appeal upheld the murder conviction of two appellants after finding they were properly identified, but substituted the death sentence with 40 years’ imprisonment.

• Murder
• Identification by recognition
• Common intention
• Malice aforethought
• Alibi defence
• Death sentence substitution

Bernard Otieno Okello v Republic

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 205 of 2014

Judge

["MK Koome", "F Sichale", "S ole Kantai"]

The Court of Appeal upheld Bernard Otieno Okello’s murder conviction, found the circumstantial and child-witness evidence sufficient, but reduced the death sentence to 30 years.

• Murder
• Circumstantial evidence
• Common intention
• Voir dire examination of child witnesses
• Confession evidence
• Malice aforethought