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 allowed the appellants’ criminal appeal, quashed the convictions for robbery with violence, and set aside the 20-year sentences.
Republic v Otieno alias Otis (Criminal Case 61 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 13131 (KLR) (25 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the deceased died after a confrontation in which the accused participated and struck him, but the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with malice aforethought. The spontaneous drunken nature of the confrontation, the absence of a recovered weapon, and the evidence of substantial intoxication left reasonable doubt on the mental element for murder. The proper conviction was therefore manslaughter as a lesser cognate offence.
Source excerpt
Wanyonyi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E025 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13042 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the charge, even if complained of as duplex, did not occasion a miscarriage of justice; the evidence proved stealing, actual violence, and participation by the appellant with others; PW1 knew the appellant and recognized him in broad daylight; and the sentence was lawful and proportionate. The conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
Mutunga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E015 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12951 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The conviction was upheld because the robbery with violence ingredients were clearly proved, and the appellant was linked to the offence by cogent circumstantial evidence: a Ceska pistol recovered from him was forensically matched to the spent cartridges and bullets recovered from the scene and the victims. The alleged contradictions on serial number and timing of recovery were minor and did not displace the prosecution case. Since the chain of circumstantial evidence remained intact and the appellant offered no explanation, the appeal failed.
Source excerpt
Mung’athia v Republic (Criminal Appeal E018 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12982 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal on conviction failed because the prosecution evidence, despite minor discrepancies, consistently established that the appellant unlawfully assaulted the deceased and that the assault caused the fatal head injury; self-defence was not available on the facts; and the alleged procedural issues did not prejudice the appellant. However, the sentence was interfered with because the original term was excessive in the circumstances, and a lower custodial term was substituted.
Source excerpt
Koech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E063 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 13077 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the evidence established all elements of robbery with violence through armed group attack and actual violence, and the complainant's and other witnesses' evidence showed reliable recognition of the appellant by appearance, clothing, dreadlocks, voice and the circumstances of the attack. The rape charge was also proved by the victim's direct testimony and surrounding evidence despite the medical and identification objections. The omission of some witnesses and the investigating officer did not weaken the case, the defence was considered and rejected as a denial, and t…
Source excerpt
Omwoyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12800 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court, after re-evaluating the record as a first appellate court, held that the evidence of multiple witnesses on the armed home invasions and the appellant’s recognition was sufficient to prove robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt, and that the rape conviction on Count VIII was also supported by the complainant’s evidence despite the lack of injurious medical findings. However, Count IX was unsafe because the evidence did not sufficiently link the appellant to the rape of PW5, who in fact said he did not rape her. The consecutive sentences were upheld because the offences were s…
Source excerpt
Jara v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12348 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The conviction was upheld because the discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence did not create reasonable doubt: the appellant was linked to the house where the child was found, PW4 knew him as the occupant, and the complainant’s account that he locked her in the house and defiled her was sufficiently corroborated. However, the sentencing court failed to credit the period spent in remand custody, so that period had to be deducted from the sentence.
Source excerpt
Mochanga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1620 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court independently re-evaluated the evidence and found that malice aforethought was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the appellant deliberately armed himself with a spear, targeted the deceased, and inflicted a fatal neck injury after a family dispute. The Court held that the facts supported murder, not manslaughter, and found the 30-year sentence justified after considering the appellant’s conduct, bad character, lack of remorse, and the Muruatetu sentencing factors.
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
Explore more
