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
High Court revision on a cheating sentence: conviction was upheld, the fine-and-default imprisonment structure was found lawful, and custody credit of two days was ordered.
The High Court dismissed a revision challenging a third mental assessment order, but allowed detailed reports to be filed for the trial court’s section 162 review.
Muteti v Republic (Criminal Revision E015 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13066 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 13066 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Republic v Prahudas & another (Criminal Revision E117 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13017 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court held that the trial magistrate did not commit a reviewable illegality or impropriety in refusing withdrawal because section 87(a) CPC gives the court a real supervisory role, not a mechanical one, and the reasons advanced by the DPP were insufficient. The court found that the existence of insolvency petitions did not justify halting a prosecution whose foundation was the alleged criminal conduct involving a company under administration, that victim consultation mattered, and that the prosecution was in the public interest to deter misuse of company assets. The revision therefor…
Source excerpt
Mushus International Ltd v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E050 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12520 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The subordinate court lawfully authorised inspection of the Applicant's banking records because the investigating officer disclosed sufficient grounds for judicial intervention, but the additional order freezing all transactions in the Applicant's operational account for ninety days was excessive and disproportionate because no material showed that such a broad restriction was necessary once access to the records had been secured.
Source excerpt
Mwenda & 3 others v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12335 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court found that the Applicants were entitled to seek variation of the bond terms, and because the application was unopposed and the court accepted that they were not a flight risk, it substituted the bond with cash bail. The existing terms were therefore varied in exercise of the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Mbaisi v Republic (Criminal Revision E208 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11944 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that section 49(1) of the Traffic Act criminalizes the manner of driving as a single offence on a given occasion, so splitting one careless-driving incident into 14 counts based on the number of injured occupants was impermissible replication that exposed the applicant to double jeopardy and a sentence beyond what one properly framed count could lawfully attract. The convictions on counts 2 to 14 were quashed, count 1 was retained, and the sentence was substituted with the statutory maximum fine for one first offence.
Source excerpt
Manyara v Republic (Criminal Revision E565 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11811 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the sentences were lawful and within statutory limits, and the imprisonment terms imposed in default of payment of fines could not legally be ordered to run concurrently; there was likewise no basis to reduce the fines, which were just and consistent with the Traffic Act.
Source excerpt
Njue v Republic (Criminal Revision E043 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11858 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court found that the trial court had before it an OB entry and a complaint indicating possible witness interference, the applicant denied the allegations but produced no rebuttal evidence, and the trial court therefore had a proper factual basis to conclude that compelling reasons existed to cancel bail. The cancellation was legal and proper, so revision was unwarranted.
Source excerpt
Njagi v Republic (Criminal Revision E122 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11786 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court declined to revise the sentence because the trial court properly considered mitigation, remand custody, and first-offender status, applied relevant sentencing factors, and imposed a lawful and proportionate sentence. No illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity was shown to justify interference.
Source excerpt
Explore more
