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 accused was acquitted of housebreaking after the court found a material variance between the charge and the evidence, and insufficient proof of breaking or intent.
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
Karwigi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E076 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12230 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant's plea was unequivocal because the charge and facts were read to him in Kiswahili, he elected to change his plea, admitted the facts as true, and no material irregularity or incapacity was shown. The sentence of 4 years on the main count was not manifestly excessive given the burglary at night, the limited recovery, and the appellant's antecedents, but the alternative count could not stand once conviction on the principal burglary count was entered.
Source excerpt
Karwigi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E078 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12874 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant’s plea was unequivocal because he chose Kiswahili, asked to change plea, heard the facts, admitted them as true, and never disputed any material aspect. No mental incapacity was raised before the trial court. The sentence was within legal limits, the trial court considered the relevant factors including prior convictions, mitigation, recovery of the goods and the guilty plea, and there was no basis to interfere with its discretion. The appeal therefore failed in full.
Source excerpt
Karwigi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E075 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11950 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)
The plea of guilty was unequivocal because the appellant chose Kiswahili, asked to change plea, admitted the facts as true, and there was no evidence of coercion or misunderstanding. However, the trial court erred in sentence by failing to properly discount for the guilty plea and by imposing a manifestly excessive custodial term without sufficient proportionality. The appellate court therefore upheld conviction but reduced sentence to 4 years on count 1 and 3 years on count 2, to run concurrently.
Source excerpt
Wangui v Republic (Criminal Appeal E079 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12759 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Judgment)
Count I failed because the prosecution did not prove an essential ingredient of burglary under section 304(2): the premises was a commercial club, not a dwelling house. That defect was substantive, not curable, and the Court refused substitution under section 306 or reliance on sections 179 and 382. Count II was upheld because the evidence proved the appellant wilfully and unlawfully damaged the television during removal. Sentence on Count I fell with the conviction, while Count II was affirmed but treated as commencing from the date first remanded in custody under section 333(2).
Source excerpt
Obote v Republic (Criminal Appeal E040 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10615 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the prosecution’s evidence, taken as a whole, established a complete circumstantial chain linking the appellant to the burglary and stealing, including his presence at the premises, the hired vehicle, and recovery of stolen property from his possession without satisfactory explanation. The date discrepancy did not prejudice the defence and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was lawful and within the trial court’s discretion, and there was no proper basis or procedure to enhance it.
Source excerpt
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Appeal E037 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9994 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found no violation of Article 50(2)(g) and (h) because the appellant was informed of his right to counsel, chose self-representation, and did not show substantial injustice. However, the convictions for burglary and stealing could not stand because the tablet was recovered about five months after the theft, which was too remote to support recent possession for those counts, and there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the breaking and entry. The proper conviction on the evidence was handling stolen property, so the court substituted that conviction and imposed a reduced…
Source excerpt
Kathenya v Republic (Criminal Appeal 94 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1358 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the sentence enhancement because that was a point of law, but the appellant’s complaint failed. The High Court had warned him of the enhancement, he did not object, the burglary was at night and attracted the statutory maximum of ten years, and the sentences were in fact ordered to run concurrently, not consecutively. The challenge to enhancement was treated as an afterthought, so there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.
Source excerpt
Mohammud v Republic (Criminal Revision E026 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8832 (KLR) (16 June 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the original sentencing record showed the trial court considered mitigation and specifically accounted for one year spent in remand custody before imposing a three-year sentence; therefore there was no basis for revision.
Source excerpt
Explore more
