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
Ogutu v Opere (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5374 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction and caution-removal orders, and dismissed the respondent’s suit, holding trespass was not proved.
Republic v Riungu & another (Criminal Appeal E146 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13089 (KLR) (25 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents were servants of the complainant, that the cement belonged to the complainant and came into the respondents’ possession through their employment, and that the cement was dishonestly appropriated. The forensic audit, documentary records, testimony of directors, drivers and store personnel, and the respondents’ control over accounting and transport functions formed a coherent circumstantial chain. The failure to call the investigating officer did not create a fatal evidential gap. The trial court therefore e…
Source excerpt
Opiyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E069 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13047 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The evidence proved an unlawful assault causing actual bodily harm, not grievous harm. The substituted conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was lawful under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the original charge and particulars necessarily included the facts of the minor offence and did not prejudice the appellant. However, the custodial sentence was disproportionate to the injury proved, so the appellate court upheld the conviction but substituted the three-year prison term with a fine.
Source excerpt
Omasaba v FAO (Suing as Next Friend of MO – Deceased Minor) (Civil Appeal E025 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12701 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The trial court considered the appellant’s submissions, so that ground failed. On quantum, only the dependency award was outside the acceptable range: Kshs. 1,000,000 for a nine-year-old minor with no earnings or dependants was inordinately high against comparable authorities and had no special justification. The appellate court therefore interfered only with that head and reduced it to Kshs. 700,000, leaving the other awards intact.
Source excerpt
Olendo v Ingasia (Civil Appeal E065 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12768 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The trial court’s award of Kshs. 120,000 was an erroneous estimate because it failed to adequately reflect the multiplicity of soft tissue injuries across several body regions and the current trend in comparable awards. However, the appellant’s proposed Kshs. 350,000 was excessive for the injuries proved. A fair award was Kshs. 250,000, so the appellate court interfered and substituted the lower award.
Source excerpt
Mutea v Halake & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5217 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove the root of his title or the legality of the certificate of lease, and therefore could not establish ownership or trespass. The trial court correctly applied the law on burden of proof and title to land. However, the finding that the respondents proved their counterclaim was left undisturbed only in part, and the appellate court clarified that the respondents had not proved ownership merely through council minutes. The appeal was dismissed, with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Source excerpt
Omondi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E091 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1618 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that PW1’s evidence established reliable recognition of the appellant as the assailant who struck the deceased, but the medical evidence introduced a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s proof of malice aforethought because the fatality depended on delayed treatment and the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate an intention to kill or cause grievous harm. The murder conviction was therefore unsafe and had to be substituted with manslaughter, with sentence adjusted to 10 years and remand time deducted under section 333(2) CPC.
Source excerpt
Kayaya v Republic (Criminal Appeal E054 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1617 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant unlawfully caused the deceased’s death and acted with malice aforethought. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, together with the post-mortem evidence and the appellant’s own admissions, showed repeated assaults using crude weapons, no provocation, and conduct inconsistent with mere self-defence. The conviction for murder was therefore proper. However, because the death sentence was mandatory at the time and the appellant was denied mitigation, the sentence was set aside and the matter remitted for mitigation and resentencing.
Source excerpt
Manjama & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal E113 & E112 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 12361 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The amended charge sheet was valid and caused no prejudice because it was lawfully amended under section 214, the appellants took fresh pleas, and they declined to recall witnesses. On the evidence, the prosecution proved all elements of gang defilement beyond reasonable doubt: the complainant was a child aged 13, penetration was established by the complainant's account and medical findings, the appellants were positively identified through recognition, and the act was committed by two persons in turns with common intention. The conviction and sentence were therefore safe and were upheld.
Source excerpt
Wabobo v Kironyo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E177 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5056 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the trial magistrate wrongly held the suit res judicata. The Appellant had been withdrawn from the earlier suit before judgment, so the earlier judgment did not bind her; the pleadings and record also showed disputed identity between Plot No. 53 and Plot No. 703, defeating the plea. The magistrate further failed to determine the framed issues and ignored material evidence, including the 2nd Respondent’s testimony. The proper remedy was to set aside the dismissal and remit the suit for determination on the merits before a different magistrate.
Source excerpt
Explore more
