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
Republic v Mulongo alias Longo (Criminal Case E010 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13190 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court at Bungoma convicted Joseph Mulongo alias Longo of murder after finding that PW1 recognised him attacking the deceased with a panga and forensic evidence matched the deceased's blood.
Nyongesa v Republic (Criminal Appeal E039 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 13029 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the prosecution proved penetration, the ages of the complainants, and the appellant’s recognition beyond reasonable doubt; the alleged charge-sheet defect was merely formal and caused no prejudice; the evidence was consistent and mutually corroborative; and the sentences were lawful, with life imprisonment mandatory for the first count and the second count sentence not warranting interference.
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
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
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
Kyalo & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal E012 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12018 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that the complainant’s consistent evidence, supported by medical findings of a completely torn hymen and documentary proof that she was 15 years old, proved penetration, age, and joint participation by both Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant knew the Appellants, so the case was one of recognition, not stranger identification. No material omission of a witness was shown, the trial court did not shift the burden of proof, and the 15-year sentence was lawful because it was the statutory minimum under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act.
Source excerpt
Republic v Achieng (Criminal Case E485 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 375 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found the complainant's evidence credible, corroborated by witnesses who heard the confrontation and saw him bleeding shortly after, and supported by medical evidence showing harm caused by a blunt object. The accused's defence was a bare denial unsupported by any witness or medical evidence, while the time discrepancies were minor and immaterial. The prosecution therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully assaulted the complainant and caused actual bodily harm.
Source excerpt
Kipsanga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E031 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12342 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because, although the complainant’s age was proved, the complainant’s evidence on identification and the surrounding circumstances was internally inconsistent and not reliably linked to the appellant, and the medical evidence did not sufficiently connect the alleged penetration to the appellant or the specific incident. The prosecution therefore failed to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt, making both conviction and sentence unsafe.
Source excerpt
Onyango alias Jagorogoro v Republic (Criminal Appeal E092 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11678 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was about eight years old, that penetration occurred, and that the appellant was positively identified through recognition; the alleged contradictions were immaterial, the defence was a bare denial, and the sentence of life imprisonment was lawful under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act.
Source excerpt
Ngiro v Republic (Criminal Appeal E191 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1504 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved murder beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness recognition evidence, corroborated by postmortem findings and recovery of the weapon; the alleged inconsistencies were minor, the omitted witness was not essential, the defence was considered and rejected, and the life sentence was justified by the brutal circumstances and the appellant’s lack of remorse.
Source excerpt
Explore more
