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
Mwamburi v Republic (Criminal Revision E073 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13291 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court at Voi dismissed an application for sentence review, holding that the adverse review report, repeat offending, and lack of suitability for community service barred relief.
Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Revision E091 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12814 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis warranting interference with the sentence. The sentence was lawful, within statutory limits, proportionate to the offence, and there was no shown misdirection, material omission, or reliance on irrelevant factors. Rehabilitation, remorse, and unsupported family hardship were insufficient to justify revision.
Source excerpt
Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Revision E008 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12352 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application succeeded because the record did not show that the trial magistrate considered the period the applicant spent in pre-trial custody, and section 333(2) required that custody period to be taken into account. The sentence was therefore reviewed to run from the date of custody.
Source excerpt
Hamisi v Republic (Criminal Revision E074 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12648 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court found the applicant unsuitable for decongestion relief because the materials before it indicated a lack of remorse and a potential risk of re-offending, and therefore declined the application.
Source excerpt
Nyakundi v Republic (Criminal Revision Application E197 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12920 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application sought review of a sentence that had already been fully served. Because the applicant had been released from prison, the matter was moot and the court dismissed the application as overtaken by events.
Source excerpt
Juma v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E072 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12394 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The trial court failed to properly credit the applicant with the 113 days spent in custody during trial as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the sentence therefore required review by adjusting the commencement date to reflect that custody period.
Source excerpt
Mose v Republic (Criminal Revision E135 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12919 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application was dismissed because the applicant had already completed the 12-month sentence and been released from prison, rendering the request for review overtaken by events and therefore moot.
Source excerpt
Mbaka alias Tommy v Republic (Criminal Revision Application E184 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12916 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application was dismissed because the applicant had already completed the sentence and been released from prison, rendering the request for review overtaken by events and incapable of practical determination.
Source excerpt
Tinga v Republic (Criminal Revision E093 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12516 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application was declined because the applicant had been convicted of a grave sexual offence, had not shown genuine remorse, and continued to justify his conduct; those factors outweighed the prison decongestion consideration and made early release inappropriate.
Source excerpt
Roba v Republic (Criminal Revision E010 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12407 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court found the subordinate court proceedings regular and the sentence lawful, but considered the quantity and value of cannabis recovered to be relatively low and exercised its revisionary discretion to substitute the five-year sentence with a three-year sentence running from 6 January 2025.
Source excerpt
Explore more
