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
The High Court declined revision after the prosecution closed its case on its own motion, finding no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the trial court process.
No-case-to-answer ruling in a murder charge: the High Court found the circumstantial evidence too weak to link Cecilia Maitha Nyaga to the killing.
Republic v Wafula & another (Criminal Case 1034 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 13289 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Judgment)
The court acquitted accused 2 and 3 on all counts after finding the prosecution had not proved housebreaking, stealing, or malicious damage beyond reasonable doubt.
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 Wafula (Criminal Case E480 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 393 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that while the complainant proved he sustained actual bodily harm, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully inflicted the injuries. The absence of independent witnesses from a crowded bar scene, the lack of direct evidence on how the injury was caused, and the plausible defence version left reasonable doubt that had to be resolved in favour of the accused.
Source excerpt
Republic v Syombua & another (Criminal Case 21 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 11792 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found the 2nd accused's confession admissible and corroborated by independent evidence showing he was inside the locked house, fled when confronted, disposed of the deceased's phone, and evaded arrest for years; the totality of the direct, circumstantial, and confession evidence proved that he unlawfully killed the deceased with malice aforethought. The 1st accused's case rested on her own extra-judicial statement and the 2nd accused's inadmissible-for-her confession, but the court held that her conduct in raising the alarm and the thinness of proof on shared foresight did not estab…
Source excerpt
Republic v Abdalla (Criminal Case E234 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 409 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was armed in public or that he possessed the alleged bhang. On the first count, the alleged threatened person was not called and the defence evidence created doubt. On the narcotics count, the prosecution did not clearly establish where in the underwear the sachets were allegedly recovered from, leaving a material gap in proof of possession.
Source excerpt
Republic v Ludasia & 3 others (Criminal Case E207 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 378 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved that the complainant owned the property and that some columns were bent, but it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons caused the damage. No witness saw them bend the columns, the case depended on circumstantial evidence that did not exclude other reasonable possibilities such as boundary dispute-related tampering or scrap-metal vandalism, and the delayed arrest further weakened the case.
Source excerpt
Republic v Wamuyu (Criminal Case E809 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 358 (KLR) (20 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently tricked the complainant into sending money for a nonexistent chama. The complainant's allegation was uncorroborated, the Mpesa statements showed reciprocal money transfers consistent with lending between the parties, and the existence of a separate Small Claims suit describing the transactions as a loan dispute further undermined the criminal charge.
Source excerpt
Republic v Ndiwa (Criminal Case (Murder) E016 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10528 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court accepted that the deceased died from a brain injury secondary to blunt force trauma, but held that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted that injury. The alleged dying declarations were weakened by the absence of call records, prompt reporting, and corroboration, and the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain excluding other reasonable explanations. Without proof that the accused caused the fatal injury, malice aforethought did not arise.
Source excerpt
Explore more
