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
Republic v Kamau (Criminal Case E029 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 47 (KLR) (7 January 2026) (Judgment)
The accused was found to have inflicted fatal stab wounds on the deceased after a confrontation, and the nature and severity of the injuries demonstrated malice aforethought. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the deceased with the requisite intent.
Source excerpt
Republic v Ouru [2025] KEHC 9550 (KLR)
The High Court at Kisumu sentenced the accused to 15 years’ imprisonment after considering mitigation, remorse, a plea bargain, and deterrence.
Republic v Kinuthia [2025] KEHC 4929 (KLR)
The court found that the accused intentionally armed himself with a lethal weapon (axe), demanded his salary, and upon being refused, struck the deceased on the head, a vulnerable part of the body, causing fatal injuries. The evidence, including eyewitness testimony and forensic analysis, established that the accused's actions were deliberate and not accidental or in the heat of the moment. The accused's conduct before, during, and after the incident, including fleeing the scene and failing to assist the victim, further demonstrated malice aforethought. The court held that the circumstances m…
Source excerpt
Republic v Muthoni [2025] KEHC 2234 (KLR)
The High Court at Nakuru acquitted the accused of murder, finding the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence incomplete and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Republic v Avugwi & another [2024] KEHC 16228 (KLR)
The High Court at Vihiga convicted two accused persons of manslaughter after finding they unlawfully beat a man who later died, but malice aforethought was not proved for murder.
Republic v Kipngok [2024] KEHC 14428 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution proved all elements of the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The death of the deceased was confirmed by eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The accused was identified as the perpetrator by multiple witnesses, including the deceased's parents, who testified that the accused admitted to injuring the deceased and directed them to the scene. The postmortem report confirmed death by blunt force trauma consistent with the witnesses' accounts. The accused's actions—seeking out the deceased, attacking him, and later informing the family—demonstrated premed…
Source excerpt
Republic v Igathe & 4 others [2024] KEHC 13528 (KLR)
The court found that while there was evidence of a quarrel and animosity between the deceased and the accused persons, the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the fatal assault. The court noted inconsistencies and falsehoods in the accuseds' statements but held that the circumstantial evidence presented was disjointed and failed to form a complete chain excluding all other reasonable hypotheses. The prosecution failed to call crucial witnesses, such as neighbors or the chief, and did not establish how the de…
Source excerpt
Republic v Simiyu [2024] KEHC 9186 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution, through the testimony of six witnesses, placed the accused at the scene of the crime and established circumstances that require the accused to explain how the deceased met his death. This evidence was deemed sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused has a case to answer and must be called upon to make his defence in accordance with section 306(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
Republic v Kimanzi [2024] KEHC 8069 (KLR)
The High Court at Garissa convicted Julius Kimanzi of manslaughter after substituting a murder charge, finding the evidence did not prove malice aforethought.
Republic v Mwangi [2024] KEHC 6594 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts placing the accused at the scene with a blood-stained knife, the deceased's dying declaration, and the post mortem report confirming death by stabbing. The evidence, if believed, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused, warranting that he be placed on his defence in accordance with Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The…
Source excerpt
Explore more
