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 accused was acquitted of housebreaking after the court found a material variance between the charge and the evidence, and insufficient proof of breaking or intent.
Republic v Gathugu alias Macha (Criminal Case E082 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 13062 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the accused was proved to have participated in an unlawful assault on the deceased together with Kamnyo, but the prosecution did not prove malice aforethought. The injuries, the postmortem findings, the drinking context, and the revenge-driven confrontation supported manslaughter, not murder. The date discrepancy in the information did not prejudice the accused or render the trial unfair, because he understood the case and mounted a defence.
Source excerpt
Otinga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E001 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12339 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The trial court failed to establish that the appellant’s absence was a deliberate waiver of his right to be present, yet proceeded to close the defence, deliver judgment in his absence, and sentence him without properly inquiring into his explanation or allowing him to defend himself. That was a fatal procedural illegality that rendered the trial a nullity, so the conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial ordered only as against the appellant.
Source excerpt
DBG v Republic (Criminal Appeal E083 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1626 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the prosecution proved age, penetration, and identification of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through the complainant's evidence, the mother's evidence, and medical testimony; the first appellate court properly reevaluated the record and made concurrent findings that there was no basis for interference. The appellant's complaints on defective charge sheet, voir dire, legal representation, and disclosure were not properly before the Court on second appeal, and the sentence imposed under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act was lawful.
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
Musyoka v Republic (Criminal Appeal E009 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12131 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the charge sheet was not prejudicially defective, PW1’s recognition of the appellant was credible and corroborated by the surrounding evidence, the prosecution proved the ingredients of attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt, the alibi was displaced by the prosecution case, and the 15-year sentence was lawful, though the appellant was entitled to credit for 573 days spent in custody before bond.
Source excerpt
Namukhondo v Wechuli & 3 others (Petition E755 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12888 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that the criminal process was initiated in retaliation shortly after an adverse civil judgment, without a fair and meaningful investigation of the Petitioner, while ignoring material exculpatory evidence already on the civil record. The forensic basis was incomplete and unreliable because it relied on photocopies and missing comparison specimens. The charge sheet was also defective because it alleged an unknown date despite the complainant having provided a specific date. In those circumstances, the prosecution was an abuse of process and a violation of Articles 27, 28, 29, 47…
Source excerpt
Kinyua v Republic (Criminal Appeal E105 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11991 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The date discrepancy in the charge did not prejudice the appellant or occasion a miscarriage of justice; the trial was fair despite no express warning on legal representation because no substantial injustice was shown; the prosecution proved incest beyond reasonable doubt; but sentence under section 20(1) is discretionary, so life imprisonment was substituted with a proportionate term of 30 years.
Source excerpt
Rimoi & 2 others v Republic (Criminal Appeal 21 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1473 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved murder beyond reasonable doubt because the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5 established recognition of the appellants, their participation in tying the deceased and setting him ablaze, and the medical evidence showed brutal injuries consistent with intentional killing and malice aforethought. The alleged contradictions were not material, the charge sheet was not defective, the alibis were considered and properly rejected, and the inquest did not undermine the conviction. The appeal therefore failed on both conviction and sentence.
Source excerpt
Omweri v Republic (Criminal Appeal E042 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13272 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)
High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction and 25-year sentence for grievous harm, finding the charge proper, the recognition evidence reliable, and no prejudice shown.
Explore more
