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
1 court collection
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] KECA 1666 (KLR)

Odhiambo v Republic

Odhiambo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E145 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1666 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E145 of 2023
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The Court held that the complainant’s age, penetration, and the appellant’s identity were all proved by the evidence and the two lower courts made concurrent findings of fact warranting no interference. The appellant’s attempt to recharacterize the evidence as attempted defilement failed because partial penetration is sufficient in law. The challenge to the charge sheet was not raised below and in any event had no merit. The 20-year sentence was lawful because it was the mandatory minimum for defilement of a child aged 12 to 15 years, but the sentence was ordered to run from 9 July 2018 when…

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Proof of age
  • Proof of penetration
  • Charge sheet defectiveness
  • Second appeal scope
  • Sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1660 (KLR)

Kosgei v Republic

Kosgei v Republic (Criminal Appeal E089 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1660 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E089 of 2023
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The prosecution proved age, penetration, and the appellant’s identity through the complainant’s mother, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence showing the child was last in the appellant’s custody; the alleged inconsistencies were minor and not fatal; and life imprisonment was the only lawful sentence prescribed by section 8(2) for defilement of a child aged nine months.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Proof of penetration
  • Child victim age proof
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Contradictions in evidence
  • Mandatory life sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1626 (KLR)

DBG v Republic

DBG v Republic (Criminal Appeal E083 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1626 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E083 of 2023
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The Court held that the prosecution proved age, penetration, and identification of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through the complainant's evidence, the mother's evidence, and medical testimony; the first appellate court properly reevaluated the record and made concurrent findings that there was no basis for interference. The appellant's complaints on defective charge sheet, voir dire, legal representation, and disclosure were not properly before the Court on second appeal, and the sentence imposed under section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act was lawful.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Penetration
  • Child age proof
  • Second appeal scope
  • Fair trial rights
  • Defective charge sheet
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KECA 1663 (KLR)

Al Husnain Motors Ltd v Michira

Al Husnain Motors Ltd v Michira (Civil Appeal E152 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1663 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal E152 of 2021
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The appeal failed because the wrong date in the notice of appeal was a clerical defect that caused no prejudice and did not defeat jurisdiction, and because the appellant did not show any error of law in the concurrent factual findings that it breached the sale agreement and failed to repair the vehicle after notification. The High Court’s decision was not perverse and the appellant remained bound by its pleadings.

Source excerpt

  • Sale agreement breach
  • Motor vehicle sale
  • Frustration of contract
  • Notice of appeal defect
  • Second appeal scope
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1622 (KLR)

BNS v Republic

BNS v Republic (Criminal Appeal E146 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1622 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E146 of 2023
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The appeal failed because the DNA evidence was properly admitted, the alleged medical inconsistencies were immaterial to proof of incest, no violation of fair trial rights or prejudice was demonstrated, and the life sentence was lawful under the Sexual Offences Act; the concurrent findings of the two lower courts were supported by solid evidence and could not be disturbed on second appeal.

Source excerpt

  • Incest
  • Child sexual offence
  • Dna evidence admissibility
  • Medical evidence contradictions
  • Fair trial rights
  • Sentence legality
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1625 (KLR)

Oyoo v Republic (Appeal E087 of 2023)

Oyoo v Republic (Appeal E087 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1625 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Appeal E087 of 2023
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The prosecution proved age, penetration, and identification of the appellant through credible oral and medical evidence; the complaints about legal representation failed because the issue was not raised below and no substantial injustice was demonstrated; and the life sentence was lawful because it was the only sentence prescribed for the offence, so the appeal failed.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Proof of age
  • Proof of penetration
  • Identification of offender
  • Right to legal representation
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
Read case analysis
Tax law [2026] KECA 1607 (KLR)

Osho Drapers Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Osho Drapers Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Civil Appeal E214 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1607 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal E214 of 2022
Judge
["DK Musinga", "P Lilan", "JO Okello"]

The appellant did not prove actual underlying transactions with sufficient reliability. Although it produced some primary documents, discrepancies in the mode of payment justified the Commissioner’s request for further records, and the appellant failed to produce them. That failure meant the burden never fully shifted back to the Commissioner. The Court therefore upheld the disallowance of input VAT and corporation tax deductions and dismissed the allegation that the lower courts erred in law.

Source excerpt

  • Burden of proof in tax disputes
  • Input tax deduction
  • Assessment validity
  • Missing trader fraud
  • Second appeal scope
  • Documentary evidence in tax claims
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1472 (KLR)

Okitopus v Republic

Okitopus v Republic (Criminal Appeal E176 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1472 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E176 of 2022
Judge
["PM Gachoka", "WK Korir", "L Ndolo"]

The complainant’s testimony, corroborated by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, proved penetration and identified the appellant as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. The life sentence was lawful because section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act mandates imprisonment for life for defilement of a child aged eleven years or less, and the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to reduce it on a second appeal.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Penetration
  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt
  • Second appeal scope
  • Mandatory life sentence
  • Minor complainant
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KECA 1507 (KLR)

South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited v Ongonga

South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited v Ongonga (Civil Appeal 178 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1507 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal 178 of 2020
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "HA Omondi", "LK Kimaru"]

The Court held that the High Court properly re-evaluated the evidence and correctly upheld the trial court because the respondent had proved breach of the sugarcane farming contract and consequent loss on a balance of probabilities. The awards for the first and second ratoon crops were supported by the acreage, yield report, cane price schedules, and contractual/statutory deductions. The appellant’s mitigation and jaggery-sale defences were unavailable because they were not properly pleaded or proved. Interest from the date of filing suit was lawful under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act…

Source excerpt

  • Second appeal scope
  • Breach of sugarcane farming contract
  • Compensation for lost ratoon crops
  • Special damages and proof
  • Mitigation of loss
  • Interest on damages
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KECA 1412 (KLR)

Opiyo v Kasuku

Opiyo v Kasuku (Civil Appeal E114 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1412 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal E114 of 2021
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The appeal failed because the Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings that the appellant’s title was fraudulently obtained and that the respondent, having been sued directly, was entitled to defend herself and counterclaim in her own right. Once fraud was proved, the appellant’s registration was impeachable under section 26(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act, and the respondent’s challenge to locus standi was misconceived.

Source excerpt

  • Fraudulent acquisition of title
  • Locus standi of a defendant/counterclaimant
  • Customary trust and family land
  • Second appeal scope
  • Rectification of land register
  • Adjudication process
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.