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.
Mochana v Republic (Criminal Appeal E040 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1656 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the concurrent findings on identification and conviction were supported by evidence, the appellant’s challenge to the identification parade was an afterthought and unfounded, and the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence remained lawful; therefore, there was no basis to interfere with either conviction or sentence.
Source excerpt
Wairugi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E056 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12829 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the prosecution proved robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt. It found PW2's identification credible and corroborated by the circumstances of the attack, identification parade evidence, PW1's testimony, recovery evidence, and DNA-related material. It further held that the trial court had considered the alibi and the alleged evidential gaps, that omission of some witnesses did not undermine the case, and that the sentence was lawful and properly exercised. The appeal therefore failed in its entirety.
Source excerpt
Wambunya v Republic (Criminal Appeal E055 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12867 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court held that the prosecution proved robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt through PW2’s account, corroborative evidence, and proper identification procedures; the appellant’s alibi and procedural objections failed because the trial court considered them and the missing witnesses were not shown to be crucial. The sentence was also upheld because the trial court exercised sentencing discretion lawfully, and no error in principle was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
Kinyua v Republic (Criminal Appeal E064 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12993 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court found that the complainant’s evidence on the attack, identification, parade compliance, and corroboration by other prosecution witnesses established that the appellant was positively identified as one of the robbers and that the ingredients of robbery with violence were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged inconsistencies were immaterial, the defence was considered and rejected as a sham, and there was no basis to interfere with conviction or sentence.
Source excerpt
Nyoike v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12844 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant’s conviction was safe because the complainant’s evidence on the attack, the stolen property, the presence of multiple armed assailants, and the identification of the appellant were credible and corroborated by medical and other evidence; the identification parade was accepted as compliant; the alibi and complaints about missing witnesses did not raise a reasonable doubt; no double jeopardy was shown; and the trial court did not err in sentencing. The appeal therefore failed in full.
Source excerpt
Wainana v Republic (Criminal Appeal E062 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12843 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the prosecution proved robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt: PW2’s evidence placed the appellants at the scene, the attack involved multiple assailants armed with weapons who used actual violence, stolen property was proved, and the identification evidence was corroborated by other testimony and forensic material. The trial court also properly considered and rejected the alibi and other defence complaints. The sentence was not shown to be unlawful or based on wrong principle, so the appeal failed.
Source excerpt
Ndungu v Republic (Criminal Appeal E061 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12831 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt: PW2’s identification of the attackers at close range, in sufficient light and over a prolonged period was credible and was corroborated by PW1, medical evidence and DNA links; the identification parade was found compliant; the alleged omissions in witnesses and documents did not undermine the case; the alibi was considered and rejected as an afterthought; double jeopardy did not arise because the murder matter was separate and still pending; and the sentence imposed was lawful and within discretion. The appeal therefore fai…
Source excerpt
Murigi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E057 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12846 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the prosecution proved robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt. PW2’s identification was reliable because the attacks occurred over a prolonged period in lit conditions with torches, she observed the attackers at close quarters, her evidence was corroborated by injury and DNA evidence, and the identification parade was proper. The alibi was considered and rejected as an afterthought. No double jeopardy arose. The trial court lawfully exercised sentencing discretion, and there was no basis to interfere with conviction or sentence.
Source excerpt
Micheni v Republic (Criminal Appeal E058 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12845 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the record showed that the appellant was positively and reliably identified in circumstances the trial court and appellate court found adequate, the offence of robbery with violence was proved by evidence of theft, joint participation, weapons and actual violence, the alibi and other defences were considered and rejected as afterthoughts, the alleged contradictions were immaterial, and no legal error or sentencing impropriety was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
Explore more
