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 13054 (KLR)

Mutunga v Republic

Mutunga v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E046 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13054 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E046 of 2025
Judge
["JN Onyiego"]

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the repeated sentence review/revision request because the applicant was effectively seeking the court to revisit its own final sentence decision after the court had already declared itself functus officio, and section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred revision where an appeal lay; the repetitive filings also amounted to abuse of process.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of high court on revision
  • Functus officio
  • Abuse of court process
  • Review/revision of sentence
  • Limits on revision where appeal lies
  • Sentencing discretion
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 13047 (KLR)

Opiyo v Republic

Opiyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E069 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13047 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E069 of 2026
Judge
["DR Kavedza"]

The evidence proved an unlawful assault causing actual bodily harm, not grievous harm. The substituted conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was lawful under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the original charge and particulars necessarily included the facts of the minor offence and did not prejudice the appellant. However, the custodial sentence was disproportionate to the injury proved, so the appellate court upheld the conviction but substituted the three-year prison term with a fine.

Source excerpt

  • Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
  • Grievous harm
  • Lesser cognate offence
  • Section 179 criminal procedure code
  • First appeal re-evaluation
  • Sentencing discretion
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12862 (KLR)

Mogaka v Republic

Mogaka v Republic (Criminal Appeal E042 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12862 (KLR) (13 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Appeal E042 of 2025
Judge
["JK Sergon"]

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant falsely represented that he had KDF slots from his seniors, thereby inducing the complainants to part with money; the money was transferred and withdrawn, the defence of maize sale was an unsupported afterthought, the trial court properly considered the defence, and the sentence was lawful and proportionate. The appeal therefore failed.

Source excerpt

  • Obtaining money by false pretence
  • False pretence
  • Burden and standard of proof
  • First appellate court duties
  • Evaluation of defence evidence
  • Sentencing discretion
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12173 (KLR)

Republic v Khamala

Republic v Khamala (Criminal Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12173 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case E010 of 2025
Judge
["RPV Wendoh"]

The court held that despite the accused’s guilty plea, remorse, and first offender status, the gravity of the unlawfully caused death, the deceased’s loss, the accused’s alcohol-related temper, and the need for rehabilitation and deterrence justified a custodial sentence of fifteen years.

Source excerpt

  • Manslaughter
  • Plea agreement
  • Mitigation
  • Pre-sentence report
  • First offender
  • Rehabilitation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1620 (KLR)

Mochanga v Republic

Mochanga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1620 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E060 of 2023
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The Court independently re-evaluated the evidence and found that malice aforethought was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the appellant deliberately armed himself with a spear, targeted the deceased, and inflicted a fatal neck injury after a family dispute. The Court held that the facts supported murder, not manslaughter, and found the 30-year sentence justified after considering the appellant’s conduct, bad character, lack of remorse, and the Muruatetu sentencing factors.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Manslaughter
  • Malice aforethought
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Identification evidence
  • First appeal review
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1624 (KLR)

Mband & another v Republic

Mband & another v Republic (Criminal Appeal E294 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1624 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal E294 of 2022
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants jointly assaulted and fatally stabbed the deceased, and the nature, location, and manner of the injuries established malice aforethought for murder. However, although the trial court noted mitigation, it did not sufficiently demonstrate individualized sentencing consideration; the death sentence was therefore excessive and was substituted with a term of imprisonment.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Malice aforethought
  • Eyewitness evidence
  • Appellate re-evaluation of evidence
  • Sentencing discretion
  • Mitigation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12030 (KLR)

State v Plimo

State v Plimo (Criminal Case E014 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12030 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case E014 of 2025
Judge
["RPV Wendoh"]

The court found the murder to be extremely serious and brutal, causing devastating harm to the deceased's family and child witness. Although the accused was treated as a first offender and had a hearing impairment, those factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offence. The court therefore imposed a lengthy custodial sentence to reflect deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Mitigation
  • Sentencing discretion
  • First offender
  • Hearing impairment
  • Deterrence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12530 (KLR)

Muhoro v Republic

Muhoro v Republic (Criminal Revision E008 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12530 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E008 of 2026
Judge
["MA Odero"]

The High Court found that the lower court followed correct procedure, accorded the applicant fair trial rights, and imposed the statutory minimum sentence of seven years under section 308(1) of the Penal Code. Because the sentence was lawful and proper, there was no basis for revision.

Source excerpt

  • Revision of sentence
  • Statutory minimum sentence
  • Preparation to commit a felony
  • Fair trial rights
  • Sentencing discretion
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12336 (KLR)

Republic v Nyamu & another

Republic v Nyamu & another (Criminal Case 20 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 12336 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Sentence)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case 20 of 2018
Judge
["RL Korir"]

The adult first accused was properly sentenced to imprisonment because murder is grave and her mitigation did not justify a non-custodial disposition, while the second accused was a child at the time of the offence and therefore had to be sentenced under the constitutional and statutory child-offender framework; his rehabilitative prospects and the pre-sentence report justified probation rather than imprisonment.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Sentencing discretion
  • Mitigation
  • Pre-sentence report
  • Child offender sentencing
  • Probation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12200 (KLR)

Ohidi v Republic

Ohidi v Republic (Criminal Revision E063 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12200 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E063 of 2025
Judge
["PJO Otieno"]

The Court held that although it had revisionary jurisdiction, it could not use that jurisdiction to convert a lawful custodial sentence into a probation or community service order after sentencing and commencement of sentence, because no illegality, impropriety, incorrectness, or material irregularity was shown in the trial court proceedings or sentence. Rehabilitation and favorable reports alone did not create a legal basis for resentencing in revision.

Source excerpt

  • Robbery with violence
  • High court revisionary powers
  • Probation order
  • Community service order eligibility
  • Non-custodial sentencing
  • Sentencing discretion
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.