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 Elima [2025] KEHC 10316 (KLR)
The High Court found the accused caused the deceased’s death but entered a special finding of guilty but insane, then discharged him and ordered release.
Republic v Ismail [2025] KEHC 9630 (KLR)
The High Court held that an accused found guilty but insane remained unfit to rejoin society and ordered detention at Mathari Mental Hospital for treatment.
Mwanziu v Republic [2025] KEHC 9557 (KLR)
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review its own sentence under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as this provision only allows the High Court to supervise subordinate courts. The applicant's detention at the President's pleasure followed a lawful finding of guilty but insane, and the procedure under Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code was properly followed. Although indeterminate sentences at the President's pleasure have been criticized as unconstitutional in some decisions, Section 166 remains the operative law for such cases. The applicant continues to require…
Source excerpt
SWW v Director of Public Prosecution [2025] KEHC 9403 (KLR)
The court held that, following the High Court's declaration of unconstitutionality of sections 162-167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is no longer lawful to detain persons found guilty but insane at the President's pleasure. However, before making any order for release, the court must be satisfied as to the applicant's current mental status, the risk posed to himself and the public, and the appropriateness of release or alternative measures. The psychiatric report on record only addressed the applicant's fitness to plead, not his risk to himself or others or his treatment history. Therefo…
Source excerpt
Republic v GNJ [2025] KEHC 8284 (KLR)
The High Court reviewed a murder sentence imposed on an accused found to have schizophrenia, substituting detention at the President’s pleasure with time served.
OKK v Republic [2025] KEHC 7940 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, having been detained at the President's pleasure for thirteen years and having undergone psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation, is now mentally stable and poses no risk to himself or the public. The statutory framework under section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires periodic review and appropriate placement, which had not been fully complied with. The court determined that continued detention is no longer justified on mental health grounds. However, recognising the need for minimal supervision, the court ordered a structured reintegration proce…
Source excerpt
Bett v Republic [2025] KEHC 6341 (KLR)
The High Court at Bomet reviewed a criminal matter involving a guilty-but-insane finding and ordered the applicant’s unconditional release after treating time served as sufficient punishment.
KMG v Attorney General & another; Kenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 9591 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant's conviction for murder was lawful, her continued detention at the President's pleasure under Section 166(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is unconstitutional, as established in Petition No. 226 of 2020 and supported by other judicial authorities. The court held that such detention violates constitutional protections against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and discriminates against persons with mental illness. Accordingly, the court set aside the order committing the applicant to Langata Women's Prison at the President's direction and instead…
Source excerpt
Republic v Kitsao [2025] KEHC 7302 (KLR)
The High Court at Mombasa considered a murder charge against Hamisi Kitsao Kombe and deferred final determination pending updated psychiatric and social inquiry reports.
Eleman v Republic [2025] KECA 828 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of sanity on a balance of probabilities. The psychiatric report only established fitness to stand trial, not the appellant's mental state at the time of the offence. The appellant's conduct before, during, and after the murder—including planning, arming himself, chasing away witnesses, and reporting to the police—demonstrated awareness and control, inconsistent with legal insanity. The trial judge properly considered all relevant evidence and correctly rejected the insanity defence. On sentencing, the Court affirmed t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
