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
Lamurani Leparana v Republic [2022] KEHC 1720 (KLR)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal after finding the charges under section 89(1) of the Penal Code were defective and did not disclose the offences.
Mohamud Abdille Hamud v Republic [2019] KEHC 2156 (KLR)
The High Court upheld the conviction for possession of an AK-47 rifle and 25 rounds of ammunition, finding the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Martine Muriungi Maore v Republic [2019] KEHC 3089 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, upholding convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition without a certificate under the Firearms Act.
Richard Otieno Samuel v Republic [2019] KEHC 11887 (KLR)
The High Court upheld conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, but reduced the sentence to time served and ordered release.
Victor Ndiwa v Republic [2018] KEHC 158 (KLR)
The court found that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was consistent and credible regarding the attack and identification of the appellant, both at the scene and during the identification parade, which was properly conducted. The appellant's alibi was inconsistent and did not raise reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was armed with a firearm and ammunition without a valid certificate and intended to commit a felony. The charges were not defective, and the alleged breach of constitutional rights regarding arraignment was…
Source excerpt
Julius Losherua Lekipila v Republic [2017] KEHC 3804 (KLR)
The High Court allowed the appeal in part and ordered two seven-year sentences for firearm and ammunition possession to run concurrently.
Patrick Kiboi Soet v Republic [2017] KEHC 4366 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant was lawfully convicted based on credible evidence that he was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition without a certificate, as he led police to their recovery and admitted possession. The alleged constitutional violation of being held beyond 24 hours did not vitiate the conviction or trial, as established in Julius Kamau Mbugua v Republic; the appropriate remedy is a claim for damages, not acquittal. The trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to five years, which is below the statutory minimum of seven years for each offence under Section 4(3…
Source excerpt
Kimani Leleruk v Republic [2017] KEHC 5250 (KLR)
The court found that the offences for which the appellant was convicted—causing grievous harm, illegal possession of a firearm, and illegal possession of ammunition—arose from the same transaction. Citing established appellate authority, the court held that the sentences for such offences should run concurrently unless exceptional circumstances exist. There was no basis for interference with the length of the sentence (7 years on each count), but the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The appellate court therefore allowed the appeal to the extent of ordering tha…
Source excerpt
Charo Badiva Kiribai v Republic [2016] KEHC 3883 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was consistent and credible, outweighing the appellant's defence and alibi, which appeared contrived and was not raised at the earliest opportunity. The appellant's admission of guilt during mitigation further supported the conviction. The court held that the ballistic report was properly admitted as secondary evidence and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences for the firearm and ammunition offences were within statutory limits and appropriate. However, the fine imposed for the government trophy offence…
Source excerpt
MAIKO LOZURU LUKUT V REPUBLIC [2012] KEHC 392 (KLR)
The court found that the evidence, including the trail of maize and footprints leading to the appellant's house, the recovery of stolen items and firearms from his house and compound, and the appellant's own actions and admissions, established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in recent possession of the stolen property. The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his possession. The doctrine of recent possession was properly applied, shifting the burden to the appellant, who did not rebut the presumption of guilt. The court also found that the prosecution prov…
Source excerpt
Explore more
