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 High Court dismissed a revision challenging a third mental assessment order, but allowed detailed reports to be filed for the trial court’s section 162 review.
Republic v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Weru (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E079 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 13189 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court held that an intermediary, counsel, and medical accommodations were sufficient for a fair trial, and allowed the magistrate’s trial to proceed.
Won v Sana Industries Company Limited t/a Angels & 2 others (Petition E229 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12454 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (3 August 2026) (Ruling)
Although the Petitioner raised arguable constitutional complaints, the interim prayers sought would effectively determine the main petition and improperly interfere with the independent functions of the DPP, police, and the criminal trial court. The court held that the issues on bail, medical access, property, and the criminal charges could be addressed in the trial court or at the full hearing, and that stopping the prosecution at this stage was not justified in the public interest.
Source excerpt
Oremo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E024 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12487 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application was incompetent because the Applicant’s conviction and sentence had already been conclusively affirmed through the appellate hierarchy, including the Court of Appeal, and the High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to reopen, vary, or review the sentence. Any constitutional complaints required a properly filed constitutional petition, not a miscellaneous criminal application.
Source excerpt
Kenya Revenue Authority v Shijenje & 3 others (Civil Appeal E450 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1603 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court of Appeal held that the letters of 8 March 2019 and 28 March 2019 were indeed further investigatory steps, but that such post-charge investigations did not, by themselves, violate the respondents’ right to a fair trial. It also held that the respondents failed to plead and prove several alleged constitutional violations with the required precision. However, because the High Court ignored the pleaded question of forum shopping and abuse of process, and the record showed the constitutional petition duplicated an existing Magistrates’ Court application between the same parties on the s…
Source excerpt
Republic v Mbio & another (Criminal Case E628 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 413 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved that the metal rods existed and were stolen from a train, but failed to produce reliable evidence linking the 2nd accused to the theft or handling of the rods. No witness identified him at the scene, no stolen property was recovered from him, the evidence on recovery and arrest was contradictory, and the alleged incriminating mention by the 1st accused was not tested because he was not called as a witness. The resulting evidence raised reasonable doubt that had to be resolved in favour of the 2nd accused.
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
Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Revision E017 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12532 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court found that the subordinate court followed the correct procedure, the applicant received a fair trial, and the original sentence was lawful under the Penal Code. However, exercising revisionary discretion, the court considered a fine to be sufficient in the circumstances and substituted the custodial sentence with a fine.
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
Kiragu v Republic (Criminal Revision E189 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12406 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court found the lower court proceedings regular and the guilty plea properly taken, but held that the guilty plea, the small quantity and low value of the narcotics, and the ODPP's concession justified reduction of sentence on revision.
Source excerpt
Explore more
