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 12324 (KLR)

Shure v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Shure v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Revision E128 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12324 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E128 of 2025
Judge
["JN Njagi"]

The trial court failed to show that it considered the applicant's pre-sentence custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the applicant had been in remand custody for about 3 months and 2 days, the High Court revised the sentence and ordered that the sentence run from the date of arrest.

Source excerpt

  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Time spent in custody
  • Arson sentence computation
  • Revision of sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11706 (KLR)

Mbiti v Republic

Mbiti v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E065 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11706 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E065 of 2025
Judge
["RL Korir"]

The application failed because the Court of Appeal had already ordered that the 20-year sentence commence from the date the applicant took plea, namely 13th March 2014, thereby crediting the pre-trial custody period; the prayer for further reduction was spent.

Source excerpt

  • Murder
  • Pre-trial custody
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Resentencing
  • Time spent in custody
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 11024 (KLR)

Republic v Nyabuto

Republic v Nyabuto (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E051 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11024 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E051 of 2026
Judge
["PK Rotich"]

The court treated the original sentencing remark as intended to mean that the custodial period already served must be factored into the sentence, and therefore reviewed the sentence to account for time spent in custody.

Source excerpt

  • Review of sentence
  • Time spent in custody
  • Correction/interpretation of sentencing order
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 12436 (KLR)

Omulo v Republic

Omulo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E062 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12436 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E062 of 2026
Judge
["JM Omido"]

The trial court did not properly account for the applicant's 164 days in pre-sentence custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, so the sentence was reviewed and backdated to run from 30th November, 2023 to give effect to the custody period already served.

Source excerpt

  • Sentence computation
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Time spent in custody
  • Review of sentence
  • Custodial remand period
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 10991 (KLR)

Terer v Republic

Terer v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10991 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2026
Judge
["JC Mutai"]

The court held that it had jurisdiction to correct its own sentence because the application sought compliance with the mandatory proviso to Section 333(2) CPC, not a reopening of the appeal. The appellate judgment was silent on pre-sentence custody, so the court could not assume the period had been considered. Since the applicant was in custody for 8 months and 7 days before sentencing, the 10-year sentence was ordered to run from the date of arrest, 18 February 2021.

Source excerpt

  • Sentence review
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Time spent in custody
  • Functus officio
  • Computation of sentence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 9017 (KLR)

Rukwaro v Republic

Rukwaro v Republic (Criminal Revision E007 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9017 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E007 of 2026
Judge
["PN Gichohi"]

The High Court found no illegality, error, or irregularity in the trial court's imposition of the statutory minimum sentence of 20 years for defilement, so revision downward was refused. However, because the record showed the applicant was arrested on 6 December 2021 and remained in custody, the sentence had to run from the date of arrest in compliance with section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Mandatory minimum sentence
  • Revisionary jurisdiction
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Time spent in custody
  • Proportionality in sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 8753 (KLR)

Baraza v Republic

Baraza v Republic (Criminal Revision E044 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8753 (KLR) (Crim) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Revision E044 of 2026
Judge
["AM Muteti"]

The trial court did not give effect to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because the applicant had been in custody from 28 March 2026 before being sentenced to eight months' imprisonment on 27 April 2026. The sentence therefore had to be revised so that the imprisonment term runs from the date of arrest and remand.

Source excerpt

  • Revision
  • Sentencing
  • Time spent in custody
  • Section 333(2) cpc
  • Bail
  • Custodial sentence computation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 8233 (KLR)

Republic v Kinuthia & another

Republic v Kinuthia & another (Criminal Case E008 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8233 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Sentence)

Court
High Court
Case number
Criminal Case E008 of 2021
Judge
["TW Ouya"]

The court held that the brutal killing of the accused’s father, the adverse probation reports, the absence of suitability for non-custodial disposition, and the seriousness of manslaughter outweighed mitigation; a custodial sentence was therefore necessary. The period already spent in custody was considered, and each accused was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment backdated to the date of first arraignment.

Source excerpt

  • Manslaughter
  • Plea bargain
  • Mitigation
  • Custodial sentence
  • Pre-sentence report
  • Aggravating factors
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEHC 8006 (KLR)

Obudo v Republic

Obudo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E114 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8006 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E114 of 2025
Judge
["A Mabeya"]

The application failed because the High Court had no jurisdiction to review a sentence it had already imposed as a court of concurrent jurisdiction; any alleged error in applying section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was an appellate issue, not a review issue. In any event, the sentencing record showed compliance with section 333(2).

Source excerpt

  • Sentence review
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Time spent in custody
  • Jurisdiction to review sentence
  • Manslaughter sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KECA 1034 (KLR)

Menja v Republic

Menja v Republic (Criminal Appeal 142 of 2018) [2026] KECA 1034 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Criminal Appeal 142 of 2018
Judge
["K M'Inoti", "S ole Kantai", "A Ali-Aroni"]

The Court held that both the trial court and the first appellate court failed to consider section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the appellant having been in custody throughout trial. That omission was a material misdirection. The sentence had to be treated as commencing from the date of arrest, not the date of conviction.

Source excerpt

  • Defilement
  • Section 333(2) criminal procedure code
  • Time spent in custody
  • Sentence commencement date
  • Appellate interference with sentence
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.