Kenya Case Law

Arati v Republic

Arati v Republic (Criminal Appeal E044 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12579 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E044 of 2025

Judge

["FN Kyambia"]

The appeal failed because the prosecution evidence, including the complainant’s partial admissions, recordings, transcripts, treated money, arrest circumstances, and forensic corroboration, sufficiently proved that the appellant solicited and received a bribe while acting as a police officer; the hostile recantation did not erase the complaint or the corroborated evidence, the electronic evidence met statutory requirements, there was no entrapment, and the defence did not rebut the prosecution case.

Source excerpt

• Receiving a bribe
• Hostile witness evidence
• Electronic evidence admissibility
• Entrapment
• Burden of proof
• First appellate re-evaluation

Kamami v Republic

Kamami v Republic (Criminal Appeal E031 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7480 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E031 of 2023

Judge

["RN Nyakundi"]

The charge sheet was not defective because its particulars clearly disclosed an offence under section 6(1)(a) of the Bribery Act by alleging a request for a financial advantage. The evidence showed the appellant initiated the bribe demand, so the case was not entrapment. The prosecution proved the offence because a request for a bribe is sufficient even without actual receipt. The sentence was within the law and was not excessive.

Source excerpt

• Receiving a bribe
• Defective charge sheet
• Entrapment
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Sentencing discretion
• Voice identification

Ngugi v Republic

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 123 of 2020

Judge

["PO Kiage", "WK Korir", "JM Ngugi"]

A second appeal against conviction for bribery under ACECA failed. The Court of Appeal upheld findings that the appellant solicited and received a bribe, and rejected entrapment and burden-shifting arguments.

• Solicitation and receipt of a bribe
• Entrapment
• Burden of proof
• Second appeal jurisdiction
• Concurrent findings of fact
• Sentence under aceca

Wanja v Republic

Wanja v Republic [2024] KEHC 13561 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Appeal 4 of 2023

Judge

PJO Otieno

The High Court found that the trial court's conviction of the appellant was fundamentally flawed because it relied on a transcription of an audio recording that was not in the official language of the court and was not properly translated. The court held that such a document has no probative value and cannot form the basis of a conviction. The trial court's failure to ensure that the evidence was admissible and comprehensible in the language of the court was a fatal error. As a result, the conviction was not supported by admissible evidence, and the sentence based on that conviction could not…

Source excerpt

• Corruption Offences
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Language Of Court
• Standard Of Proof
• Entrapment
• Criminal Appeals

Kalama v Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others

Kalama v Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others [2024] KEHC 11242 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Application 11 of 2022

Judge

AC Mrima

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish entrapment. There was no evidence that the alleged police informer was a government agent or that the police induced the Petitioner to commit the offence. The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to shift the evidential burden to the Respondents. The Court held that, even if the Respondents had not opposed the Petition, the Petition would still fail for lack of evidence. Consequently, the Petition and the related Notice of Motion were dismissed, the conservatory orders staying the crimi…

Source excerpt

• Entrapment
• Right To Fair Trial
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Burden Of Proof

Cheruiyot v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; Makhanu (Interested Party)

Cheruiyot v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; Makhanu (Interested Party) [2023] KEHC 3918 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crime Petition 3 of 2022

Judge

EN Maina

The court found that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission acted within its statutory and constitutional mandate in conducting covert investigations and recording the petitioner’s conversations with the interested party. The right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to lawful limitations, particularly for the prevention and investigation of crime as provided under Section 28 of the Data Protection Act. The court distinguished the present case from those involving purely private investigations, noting that the recordings were made in the context of an official anti-corruption inquiry…

Source excerpt

• Right To Privacy
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Entrapment
• Data Protection
• Investigative Powers
• Fair Trial Rights

Cheruiyot v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; Makhanu (Interested Party)

Cheruiyot v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; Makhanu (Interested Party) [2023] KEHC 377 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crime Petition 3 of 2022

Judge

EN Maina

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case, as the use of audio and video recordings allegedly obtained without a court order raised serious constitutional questions regarding the right to privacy and admissibility of evidence. The court determined that there was a real and imminent danger of prejudice to the applicant if the respondent continued to rely on the impugned recordings in ongoing investigations, as this could lead to charges based on potentially unlawfully obtained evidence. The court held that the public interest and the administration of justice would…

Source excerpt

• Right To Privacy
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Data Protection
• Entrapment
• Conservatory Orders
• Investigative Powers

Republic v Mwangi & another

Republic v Mwangi & another [2021] KEMC 3 (KLR)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption Case 17 of 2014

Judge

TN Thyaka

The court found that the 1st accused, as a public officer and member of the Planning Committee, solicited a bribe of Kshs. 280,000/= and received Kshs. 140,000/= from the complainants as an inducement to influence the committee's decision regarding the demolition of stalls. The prosecution's case was corroborated by electronic evidence, transcripts, and the government analyst's report confirming the presence of APQ powder on the accused's hands. The defence of entrapment was rejected as the EACC acted on a prior complaint and did not incite the offence. The 2nd accused was acquitted on the ch…

Source excerpt

• Corruption Offences
• Public Officer Misconduct
• Bribery
• Evidence Act Section 106b
• Burden Of Proof
• Entrapment

Cyprian Nyakundi & Emmanuel Nyamweya v Director of Criminal Investigations, Inspector-General Police & Director of Public Prosecutions; Victoria Commercial Bank (Interested Party)

Cyprian Nyakundi & Emmanuel Nyamweya v Director of Criminal Investigations, Inspector-General Police & Director of Public Prosecutions; Victoria Commercial Bank (Interested Party) [2021] KEHC 12701 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E284 of 2020

Judge

AC Mrima

The court found that the police, particularly Cpl. Odhiambo, were at the center of orchestrating the events that led to the Petitioners' arrest, acting before any formal complaint was made and actively facilitating contact and negotiations between the parties. The evidence showed that the Petitioners did not initiate any extortion attempt and only responded to persistent overtures from agents acting on police advice. The court held that, absent the police's intervention, the Petitioners would not have committed the alleged offence. This conduct amounted to entrapment, rendering all evidence o…

Source excerpt

• Entrapment
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Right To Fair Trial
• Criminal Procedure
• Abuse Of Process

Thomas Katiku v Republic

Thomas Katiku v Republic [2017] KEHC 8980 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Court Martial Appeal 7 of 2016

Judge

LK Kimaru

Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the court found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of ten rounds of ammunition at the time of arrest. The appellant, a military officer, had access to ammunition and was found to have negotiated its sale to a third party. The claim of entrapment and planting of evidence was not credible, especially given the independent investigation by military police, which corroborated the findings of the civilian police. The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated in a manner that wo…

Source excerpt

• Possession Of Ammunition
• Entrapment
• Standard Of Proof
• Evidence Admissibility
• Constitutional Rights
• Military Justice