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
On first appeal, the High Court at Marsabit upheld a conviction for defilement of a 17-year-old, finding penetration, age and identification proved beyond reasonable doubt, and upheld the statutory 15-year sentence.
Republic v Shitanda (Criminal Case 55 of 2015) [2026] KEHC 12521 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved the deceased died and that death resulted from unlawful assault, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was the assailant. The evidence identifying him was weak, hearsay-based, and speculative; key family witnesses were not called and the recovered panga was not forensically linked to the Accused. The circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain excluding other family members as possible perpetrators.
Source excerpt
Republic v Juma (Criminal Case E182 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 391 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved that the complainant's mattress was recently stolen and that the accused was in possession of it and attempting to dispose of it, with no reasonable explanation. However, it did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the breaking and entering at night required for burglary. The main charge failed, but the alternative charge of handling stolen property was proved.
Source excerpt
Kamomoe v Republic (Criminal Appeal E265 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 11720 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal against conviction failed because the documentary, bank, audit, expert, and oral evidence formed a complete circumstantial chain proving that the appellant was the beneficiary and active participant in a fraudulent scheme involving forged weighbridge tickets and cess receipts. The court held that direct proof of who physically forged each document was unnecessary where the surrounding evidence irresistibly pointed to guilt. The sentence was only interfered with to the extent that the default imprisonment term of two years per count was illegal and excessive; it was reduced to one y…
Source excerpt
Republic v Parkusaa (Criminal Appeal E019 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11324 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the threatening words were accurately uttered, translated, and connected to the respondent, and it also failed to show that the complainant reasonably apprehended a threat to life; the evidence was weakened by translation uncertainty, hearsay, pre-existing family and land disputes, and lack of proof linking the respondent to the alleged subsequent acts.
Source excerpt
Republic v Mungai (Criminal Appeal E055 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11039 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellate court held that the record proved the respondent received the bitumen, made false representations, and issued two cheques knowing his account had insufficient funds. The trial court wrongly disregarded the complainant’s testimony and the documentary exhibits. The prosecution evidence was sufficient despite not calling every possible witness, and the respondent’s failure to call his alleged employees justified an adverse inference. The acquittal was therefore unsafe and was set aside.
Source excerpt
Isaac v Republic (Criminal Appeal E025 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13114 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the medical and eyewitness evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant suffered grievous harm inflicted by the appellant, whom the witnesses recognised as a known neighbour. The time discrepancy was peripheral, the alibi was displaced by credible prosecution evidence rather than rejected merely for lateness, the defence was heard, and the sentence was lawful and proportionate to the permanent loss of a finger.
Source excerpt
Republic v Mueke (Criminal Case E064 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 411 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution evidence was internally inconsistent on the timing, wording, and circumstances of the alleged threats, and the contradictions were fundamental, not minor. That evidence did not dislodge the accused’s defence or prove the first count beyond reasonable doubt. The court also treated the cited High Court decision declaring section 95(1)(b) unconstitutional as binding and declined to determine the second count under a void provision.
Source excerpt
Owange v Republic (Criminal Appeal E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10517 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment)
Although unauthorized installations at Baba Yao Bar were proved, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant personally installed the prepaid meters or knowingly permitted their unlawful installation. The conviction rested on inference and hearsay, with material witnesses not called, leaving reasonable doubt. The convictions and resulting sentences on counts III and VI were therefore unsustainable and had to be quashed and set aside.
Source excerpt
Kiio v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8960 (KLR) (22 June 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved the appellant’s presence and identification, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intentionally committed an indecent sexual act against the complainant as charged. The medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged breast-tugging, and the appellant’s version that the incident was an altercation involving a slap was credible. Without proof of the sexual element, the conviction could not stand.
Source excerpt
Explore more
