Esheria Kenya Case Law
Sign in
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Kenya Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Kenya case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Kenya decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 13024 (KLR)

Mutuku v Republic

Mutuku v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13024 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2025
Judge
["JN Onyiego"]

The High Court held that although revision is generally barred where an appeal lies, the record showed the trial court failed to credit the applicant with the period spent in remand custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application therefore succeeded to the extent that the remand period had to be considered in computing the sentence.

Source excerpt

  • Revision jurisdiction
  • Section 333(2) cpc remand period credit
  • Jurisdiction where appeal lies
  • Discretionary interference with sentence
  • Grievous harm
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 13047 (KLR)

Opiyo v Republic

Opiyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E069 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13047 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E069 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

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

  • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
  • Grievous harm
  • Lesser cognate offence
  • Section 179 criminal procedure code
  • First appeal re-evaluation
  • Sentencing discretion
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11769 (KLR)

Bulimu v Republic

Bulimu v Republic (Criminal Revision E125 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11769 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E125 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The trial court had already considered the applicant’s mitigation, remand period, and status as a first offender, and the 4-year sentence for grievous harm was lawful in the circumstances. No basis existed to interfere with the sentence in revision.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Section 234 penal code
  • Non-custodial sentence
  • Mitigation
  • First offender
  • Remand custody
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11917 (KLR)

Njonjira v Republic

Njonjira v Republic (Criminal Revision 70 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11917 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision 70 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The court held that although the applicant had mitigating factors, the aggravating circumstances were serious because excessive force was used and the complainant narrowly avoided death after medical intervention; balancing both sides, the four-year sentence was sufficient and required no revision.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Sentence review
  • Mitigating factors
  • Aggravating factors
  • First offender
  • Custodial time served
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11882 (KLR)

Adannah v Republic

Adannah v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E142 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11882 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E142 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The applicant failed to show any good cause for interference with sentence because the trial court had already considered mitigation, remand custody, and first-offender status, and the 4-year imprisonment term was lawful in the circumstances.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Sentence revision
  • Mitigation
  • Non-custodial sentence
  • Remand custody
  • First offender
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12013 (KLR)

Peter v Republic

Peter v Republic (Criminal Appeal E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12013 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E005 of 2025
Judge
["MW Mutuku"]

The conviction was upheld because the appellant had pleaded guilty and the record, including CCTV evidence and medical evidence, supported the charges. However, the consecutive sentencing was unjustified on the facts because the offences arose from the same transaction, and the trial court also failed to account for time spent in custody, so the sentence order had to be revised to concurrent terms with credit for custody time.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Unnatural offence
  • Plea of guilty
  • First appeal review
  • Concurrent versus consecutive sentences
  • Credit for time spent in custody
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11770 (KLR)

Mudin v Republic

Mudin v Republic (Criminal Revision 78 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11770 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision 78 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The court found that although the applicant was a first offender, remorseful, and had spent a substantial period in custody, the aggravating factor that he used excessive force and caused the complainant to lose a tooth outweighed the mitigation. The three-year sentence was therefore sufficient and disclosed no basis for revision.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Sentence adequacy
  • Mitigating factors
  • Aggravating factors
  • First offender
  • Custody period
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11768 (KLR)

Origicha v Republic

Origicha v Republic (Criminal Revision E118 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11768 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E118 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the record showed it considered mitigation and expressly directed that the remand period be taken into account; therefore there was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness justifying revision.

Source excerpt

  • Revision of sentence
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Pre-trial remand custody
  • Computation of sentence
  • Grievous harm
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEMC 377 (KLR)

Republic v Wanyama

Republic v Wanyama (Criminal Case E409 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 377 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Criminal Case E409 of 2024
Judge
["AK Njeru"]

The court found that the complainant’s injuries were proved by medical evidence and that the accused was positively recognized by voice, prior acquaintance, immediate reports, and surrounding circumstances. The accused’s self-defence version was rejected because it was inconsistent with the severity of injuries and the overall evidence. On count II, the court held the charge of handling stolen property was legally unsustainable because the prosecution case alleged the accused himself took the phone during the assault, making him the principal offender rather than a handler.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Handling stolen property
  • Identification evidence
  • Voice recognition
  • Self-defence
  • Single witness evidence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEMC 371 (KLR)

Republic v Ali

Republic v Ali (Criminal Case E009 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 371 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Criminal Case E009 of 2026
Judge
["FM Mulama"]

The prosecution proved that the accused unlawfully assaulted the complainant with a wooden stick, but the medical evidence only established soft tissue injuries with no permanent or serious injury. The P3 classification of grievous harm was rejected as unsupported and inconsistent with the treatment notes, so the proper conviction was assault causing actual bodily harm under section 251 of the Penal Code, not grievous harm under section 234.

Source excerpt

  • Grievous harm
  • Assault causing actual bodily harm
  • Assessment of medical evidence
  • Credibility of witnesses
  • Unlawful assault
  • Conviction on lesser cognate offence
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.