Kenya Case Law

Republic v Kitsao

Republic v Kitsao (Criminal Case E012 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 11739 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E012 of 2022

Judge

["M Thande"]

The statement was inadmissible because it was made by Karisa Kitsao about the cause of Jumwa’s death, not by the deceased whose death was in issue, and section 33(b) did not apply because the provision concerns statements made by the maker in the ordinary course of business, not a statement merely recorded by the investigating officer. Its admission would also prejudice the accused and offend Article 50.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Hearsay evidence
• Dying declarations
• Admissibility of witness statements
• Fair trial rights
• Section 33 of the evidence act

Republic v Khisa

Republic v Khisa (Criminal Case E013 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 11305 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E013 of 2022

Judge

["REA Ougo"]

The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was with the deceased shortly before death, that the deceased repeatedly and consistently identified the accused as the assailant while conscious, that the medical evidence matched a sustained violent attack including strangulation and severe head trauma, and that the alibi did not create reasonable doubt. The evidential gaps on forensic analysis of recovered exhibits did not undermine the stronger eyewitness recognition, dying declarations and medical evidence.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Circumstantial evidence
• Dying declarations
• Alibi defence
• Malice aforethought
• Post-mortem evidence

Republic v Ndiwa

Republic v Ndiwa (Criminal Case (Murder) E016 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10528 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case (Murder) E016 of 2024

Judge

["REA Ougo"]

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

• Murder
• Dying declarations
• Circumstantial evidence
• Cause of death
• Malice aforethought
• Acquittal

Republic v Ndambuki

Republic v Ndambuki (Criminal Case E010 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9463 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E010 of 2025

Judge

["TM Matheka"]

The prosecution proved that the deceased died from unlawful head injury, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death. The alleged identification of the accused as 'Junior' was not adequately established, the supposed dying declaration was not reliable or corroborated, no eyewitness placed the accused at the scene, and the investigation was incomplete. On that evidence, the court could not safely convict for murder.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Circumstantial evidence
• Dying declarations
• Identification of accused
• Malice aforethought

Republic v Otieno

Republic v Otieno (Criminal Case E008 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9822 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E008 of 2025

Judge

["WM Kagendo."]

Although the deceased’s death and medical cause were proved, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted the fatal injury. The court found unresolved doubt from the deceased’s intoxicated violent conduct, the shattered glass at the scene, the blood pattern, the failure to recover or test the alleged knife and glass fragments, and the unreliability of the alleged dying declaration video. The benefit of doubt therefore went to the accused.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Circumstantial evidence
• Dying declarations
• Burden and standard of proof
• Forensic investigation
• Acquittal

Republic v Ajowi

Republic v Ajowi (Criminal Case 8 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 9739 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case 8 of 2020

Judge

["JM Omido"]

The prosecution proved the fact and medical cause of death, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused alone unlawfully caused it with malice aforethought. The evidence was circumstantial, inconsistent, and compatible with a sudden mutual fight in which both sides were injured. The DNA and recovery evidence did not remove that doubt. The accused was therefore entitled to acquittal.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Malice aforethought
• Circumstantial evidence
• Dying declarations
• Self-defence
• Dna evidence

Republic v Ouma

Republic v Ouma (Criminal Case E019 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8357 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E019 of 2024

Judge

["ACA Ong’injo"]

The court held that the prosecution proved death, unlawful killing, identity of the assailant, and malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased’s repeated statements naming the accused were corroborated by direct recognition evidence, the accused’s immediate flight, and the absence of injuries on the accused when arrested at the hospital. The defence of self-defence and alibi failed because the accused gave contradictory accounts, produced no supporting witness, and the prosecution evidence displaced his version.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Dying declarations
• Identification by recognition
• Malice aforethought
• Self-defence
• Alibi

Republic v Nyamala Kameti

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case 33 of 2017

Judge

LN Mutende

The High Court convicted Nyamala Kameti of murder after the deceased, who died of kidney failure from extensive burns, named him as the person who poured hot water on her; the court found the burn pattern inconsistent with self-infliction.

• Murder
• Malice aforethought
• Dying declarations
• Circumstantial evidence
• Causation of death
• Actus reus

Republic v Irine Lusike Chesoli

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E022 of 2024

Judge

RK Limo

The High Court convicted the accused of murder, finding the cause of death proved and the circumstantial evidence, including dying declarations to the deceased's relatives, sufficient to link her to the fatal assault.

• Murder
• Actus reus
• Malice aforethought
• Circumstantial evidence
• Dying declarations
• Admissibility of hearsay exceptions

Simon Gitonga Ngaruri v Republic

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal 98 of 2016

Judge

["S ole Kantai", "A Ali-Aroni", "AO Muchelule"]

The Court of Appeal upheld Simon Gitonga Ngaruri’s murder conviction but set aside the death sentence, substituting 30 years’ imprisonment from the date of plea.

• Murder
• Circumstantial evidence
• Dying declarations
• Malice aforethought
• Corroboration
• Dna/forensic evidence