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
2 court collections
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] KEHC 13019 (KLR)

Kinyili v Republic

Kinyili v Republic (Criminal Revision E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13019 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E001 of 2026
Judge
["JN Onyiego"]

The court held that it could not use revision as a substitute for appeal to generally reduce a lawful sentence on mercy grounds, but it could intervene to ensure compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the trial court failed to account for the applicant's remand custody, the sentence must be computed by crediting 2 years, 3 months and 2 days spent in custody.

Source excerpt

  • Revision
  • Jurisdiction
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Remand custody credit
  • Attempted defilement
  • Sexual offences act
Read case analysis
Constitutional law [2026] KEHC 13049 (KLR)

Esese v Director of Public Prosecutions

Esese v Director of Public Prosecutions (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13049 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Constitutional Petition E002 of 2026
Judge
["RN Nyakundi"]

The petition failed because the issues around conviction and sentence had already been litigated and determined through the trial court, High Court appeal and Court of Appeal, leaving no jurisdictional basis for this Court to reopen the matter by way of constitutional petition. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate new and compelling evidence for Article 50(6), and the petition was in substance an attempt to relitigate a concluded sentence; accordingly, res judicata and finality barred relief.

Source excerpt

  • Mandatory death sentence
  • Robbery with violence
  • Res judicata
  • Jurisdiction of the high court
  • Resentencing
  • Right to dignity
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 13070 (KLR)

Machira v Republic

Machira v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13070 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024
Judge
["PN Gichohi"]

The application failed because the applicant's conviction and life sentence had already been confirmed through the High Court and Court of Appeal; therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to review or alter the Court of Appeal's final decision, and Section 333(2) CPC could not be invoked to disturb that finality.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement sentencing under the sexual offences act
  • Mandatory minimum sentence challenge
  • Sentence re-hearing
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Jurisdiction of the high court vis-à-vis court of appeal
  • Res judicata and abuse of process
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1578 (KLR)

Mundia v Republic

Mundia v Republic (Criminal Application E027 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1578 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Application E027 of 2026
Judge
["K M'Inoti"]

The court exercised discretion to extend time because the roughly six-month delay, though inordinate, was sufficiently explained by the applicant’s imprisonment and difficulty obtaining proceedings, the intended appeal was not frivolous, and the respondent showed no prejudice. However, the applicant failed to prove inability to pay court fees, so relief from fees was not granted outright and was left to a means inquiry by the Deputy Registrar.

Source excerpt

  • Extension of time
  • Second appeal
  • Conviction on fraud-related offences
  • Sentencing
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Consecutive versus concurrent sentences
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12333 (KLR)

Republic v Mulwa alias Mboi

Republic v Mulwa alias Mboi (Criminal Case 19 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 12333 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case 19 of 2020
Judge
["TM Matheka"]

The court held that although the two clans reconciled and customary rites were performed, the offender remained individually culpable. Given that he was a first offender, remorseful, young, and had been in custody since 6 June 2023, a custodial sentence was still warranted. Applying section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appropriate sentence was seven years' imprisonment backdated to the date of arrest/custody.

Source excerpt

  • Manslaughter
  • Customary reconciliation
  • Pre-sentence report
  • Mitigation
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Custodial sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11945 (KLR)

Wanga v Republic

Wanga v Republic (Criminal Application E060 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11945 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Application E060 of 2026
Judge
["E Ominde"]

The application succeeded because section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code obliges the court to account for time spent in remand custody, and the sentencing record confirmed that the trial court had not done so. The accused was therefore entitled to credit for the remand period against the 15-year sentence.

Source excerpt

  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Remand custody credit
  • Sentencing computation
  • Defilement sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11903 (KLR)

Odongo v Republic

Odongo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E101 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11903 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E101 of 2025
Judge
["PJO Otieno"]

The trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) CPC by not crediting the applicant's pre-sentence custody, so the sentence had to run from the date of arrest. In light of favourable probation and prison reports, advanced age, exemplary conduct, and the fact that only a short custodial balance remained, the court exercised discretion to substitute the balance of the sentence with probation for one year.

Source excerpt

  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Pre-sentence custody credit
  • Defilement
  • Non-custodial sentence
  • Probation
  • Sentence substitution
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11869 (KLR)

Odhiambo v Republic

Odhiambo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E274 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11869 (KLR) (Crim) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E274 of 2025
Judge
["AM Muteti"]

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit or convert a custodial sentence that had been imposed by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, but it could correct the sentence computation to reflect the mandatory requirement under Section 333(2) CPC by deducting only the actual remand period; the application succeeded only to that limited extent.

Source excerpt

  • Review of ruling
  • Sentence computation
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Non-custodial sentence
  • Medical grounds
  • Rehabilitation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11768 (KLR)

Origicha v Republic

Origicha v Republic (Criminal Revision E118 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11768 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E118 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The trial court complied with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the record showed it considered mitigation and expressly directed that the remand period be taken into account; therefore there was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness justifying revision.

Source excerpt

  • Revision of sentence
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Pre-trial remand custody
  • Computation of sentence
  • Grievous harm
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12318 (KLR)

Omulama & another v Republic

Omulama & another v Republic (Miscellaneous Application E097 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12318 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Application E097 of 2024
Judge
["JN Kamau"]

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the consolidated resentencing applications and that the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to mitigate because sentencing in robbery with violence cases must be individualized. However, the court was not prepared to determine final sentences immediately because the record lacked prison recommendation letters and programme certificates, and it declined to order concurrent sentences where the convictions arose from different courts and different dates. The court therefore granted a limited resentencing process, directed for further repo…

Source excerpt

  • Robbery with violence
  • Death sentence
  • Resentencing
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Mitigation
  • Concurrent sentences
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.