Kenya Case Law

Republic v Masila

Republic v Masila [2025] KEHC 9400 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E009 of 2024

Judge

TM Matheka

The court found that while the prosecution established that the deceased died from unnatural causes, there was no evidence directly or circumstantially connecting the accused to the murder. The testimonies of key witnesses did not place the accused at the scene on the material day, and the alleged murder weapon was not forensically linked to the accused or the deceased. The prosecution failed to provide evidence of malice aforethought or any motive, and the investigation was found to be inadequate, with significant gaps in linking the accused to the crime. The court held that suspicion, howev…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Standard Of Proof
• Prima Facie Case
• Malice Aforethought
• Evidentiary Requirements

Republic v Angwete & another

Republic v Angwete & another [2025] KEHC 7994 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E101 of 2024

Judge

DR Kavedza

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the respondents for the offence of obtaining money by false pretence. The evidence did not link the respondents, particularly Peter Delumana, to the funds received or to any false representation made to the complainant. No authenticated communication, sale agreement, or documentation was produced to connect the respondents to the alleged fraudulent transaction. The prosecution's case was disjointed, lacked corroboration, and failed to demonstrate any nexus between the respondents and the offence. Accordin…

Source excerpt

• Obtaining By False Pretence
• Prima Facie Case
• Acquittal At No Case To Answer
• Burden Of Proof
• Evidentiary Requirements

Republic v Siatah

Republic v Siatah [2025] KEHC 5962 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E040 of 2021

Judge

JR Karanja

The court found that the prosecution failed to present sufficient and credible evidence to establish the necessary ingredients of the charge of murder against the accused. Only two witnesses were called, and critical evidence such as identification of the deceased, the weapon used, and expert testimony were lacking. The prosecution did not link the accused to the offence, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Applying the legal standard for a prima facie case, the court held that no reasonable tribunal could convict on the evidence adduced. Consequently,…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Prima Facie Case
• Burden Of Proof
• Acquittal
• Criminal Procedure
• Evidentiary Requirements

Waweru v Ngama & another; Managing Director/CEO NCBA Bank (Contemnor)

Waweru v Ngama & another; Managing Director/CEO NCBA Bank (Contemnor) [2024] KEHC 15229 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal 273 of 2018

Judge

JM Omido

The High Court varied an order requiring NCBA Bank’s Managing Director/CEO to attend a contempt hearing, finding the order could not be complied with on the evidence before it.

• Contempt Of Court
• Personal Attendance Orders
• Jurisdiction Of Court
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Contempt-of-court
• Civil-procedure

Ndonga v Republic

Ndonga v Republic [2024] KEHC 12843 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal 15 of 2020

Judge

CJ Kendagor

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding that the prosecution failed to prove theft of a motorcycle beyond reasonable doubt.

• Stealing Motor Vehicle
• Standard Of Proof
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Ownership Dispute
• Criminal-appeal
• Stealing-motor-vehicle

Republic v Wangare & another

Republic v Wangare & another [2024] KEHC 11222 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal 25 of 2019

Judge

AC Mrima

The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, upholding the acquittal for malicious damage to property after finding no proof linking the sprayed chemicals to the crop loss.

• Malicious Damage To Property
• Standard Of Proof
• Criminal Appeals
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Criminal-appeal
• Malicious-damage-to-property

Agot v Munge

Agot v Munge [2024] KEHC 11925 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E1028 of 2023

Judge

TW Ouya

High Court appeal from the Small Claims Court dismissed. The court upheld the lower award of Kshs. 8,410, finding the appellant had not proved the broader damages claimed.

• Appeals From Small Claims Court
• Burden Of Proof
• Oral Contracts
• Special And General Damages
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Breach Of Contract

Monaco Engineering Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Monaco Engineering Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2024] KEHC 9879 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Tax Appeal E126 of 2020

Judge

DKN Magare

The High Court held that the burden of proof in tax disputes rests with the taxpayer, who must provide sufficient evidence to dislodge the presumption of correctness attached to the Commissioner’s tax assessment. The Appellant failed to produce adequate documentary evidence to support its objection to the tax assessment, particularly regarding the alleged misapplication of the banking analysis method and the inclusion of non-income deposits. The Tribunal’s decision to uphold the assessment was therefore justified. The court found no error of law or misapplication of legal principles by the Tr…

Source excerpt

• Burden Of Proof In Tax Disputes
• Tax Assessment Methods
• Interpretation Of Tax Statutes
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Judicial Review Of Tribunal Decisions

Republic v Mbugua

Republic v Mbugua [2024] KEHC 6656 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E087 of 2022

Judge

RN Nyakundi

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent cut and removed forest produce without authority or was unlawfully present in a state forest. None of the prosecution witnesses saw the respondent cutting or removing the trees, and the photographic evidence lacked probative value due to uncertainty about when and where the photos were taken. The prosecution also failed to adduce evidence that the forest in question was a public or provisional forest as defined by statute. The legal burden of proof remained with the prosecution throughout, an…

Source excerpt

• Forest Offences
• Burden Of Proof
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Acquittal
• Statutory Interpretation

Manchester Outfitters Limited v Tailors and Textiles Workers Union

Manchester Outfitters Limited v Tailors and Textiles Workers Union [2024] KECA 304 (KLR)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal 89 of 2018

Judges

HM Okwengu, MA Warsame, JM Mativo

The Court of Appeal upheld a finding that the worker was employed by the appellant and was unfairly terminated, dismissing the appeal with costs.

• Unlawful Termination
• Burden Of Proof
• Employment Relationship
• Evidentiary Requirements
• Employment-law
• Unfair-dismissal