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
Wote & 2 others v Republic [2024] KEHC 15909 (KLR)
The High Court upheld convictions for trafficking 400kg of cannabis but reduced the sentences, finding the trial court’s terms manifestly excessive.
Namayengo alias Nakhafanyaje & 4 others v Republic [2024] KECA 1203 (KLR)
First appeal in a murder case: the Court of Appeal upheld convictions of the 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants, but quashed those of the 3rd and 5th.
Republic v Tuisang & 3 others [2024] KEHC 4495 (KLR)
The High Court at Kabarnet convicted four accused persons of manslaughter after finding they unlawfully caused the deceased’s death but lacked malice aforethought.
Republic v Loloi & 6 others [2024] KEHC 3224 (KLR)
The High Court at Lodwar held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case in a murder charge and ordered the accused persons to defend themselves.
Mutemi & 2 others v Republic [2024] KECA 85 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal by three brothers convicted of forgery and malicious damage to property, upholding the lower courts’ findings.
Gakinya v Republic [2024] KEHC 820 (KLR)
The High Court found that there was no evidence linking the appellant to the narcotic drugs found in the vehicle. The appellant was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, and there was no evidence of joint hiring or common intention with the driver. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had knowledge of or control over the drugs, either actual or constructive. The trial magistrate erred by relying on the absence of evidence regarding the appellant's permission to be away from duty, an issue not raised by the prosecution. The contradictions in the prosecution's evidence…
Source excerpt
Republic v Ndungu & another [2023] KEHC 26228 (KLR)
The court found that both accused persons were present at the scene and were involved in the events leading to the deceased being set on fire. Although no witness saw the accused actually set the deceased on fire, the circumstantial evidence, including their actions before and after the incident, formed a strong chain linking them to the offence. The court held that the accused persons acted jointly and with malice aforethought, as evidenced by their conduct and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons caused…
Source excerpt
Republic v Swaleh alias Ngovi Mwaiwe & 2 others [2023] KEHC 25879 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, acting jointly and with malice aforethought, murdered Chindoro Ngovi. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, both close relatives and eyewitnesses, was consistent and credible, corroborated by medical evidence and prior threats reported to authorities. The accused were positively recognized at the scene in broad daylight, and their alibi defences were found to be fabricated, inconsistent, and raised too late to be credible. The court held that motive was immaterial, and the threats and subsequent killing estab…
Source excerpt
Republic v Njagi & another [2023] KEHC 25316 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, acting jointly with others, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, Ibrahim Mwaniki Njeru, resulting in his death. The testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW6 placed the accused at the scene and established their participation in the assault. The defense of alibi was not credible or sufficiently detailed to create reasonable doubt, and was raised too late for effective interrogation. The court found that malice aforethought was established by the nature of the injuries, the use of weapons, and the conduct…
Source excerpt
Republic v Saulo & another [2023] KEHC 20603 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ayub Saulo and Peter Tindi Luta, together with a third person, jointly attacked the deceased and his companions. Although no witness saw the actual stabbing, the circumstantial evidence, including the confession by the 1st accused, the recovery of the knife, and the testimony of witnesses who saw the accused with the weapon and at the scene, established their involvement. The nature and location of the stab wounds, as well as the conduct of the accused, demonstrated malice aforethought. The court held that the accused ac…
Source excerpt
Explore more
