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
Ndeto v Republic [2025] KEHC 9212 (KLR)
The High Court at Marsabit quashed Bonface Ndeto’s convictions for firearm and ammunition possession and acquitted him, finding possession was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Kalipa v Republic [2025] KEHC 5122 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, and unlawful presence in Kenya.
Mutirithia v Republic [2024] KEHC 6591 (KLR)
The High Court at Meru dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm, ammunition, and a magazine.
Mamo & 3 others v Republic [2024] KEHC 3579 (KLR)
The High Court quashed convictions for firearm and ammunition possession, finding the prosecution had not proved actual or constructive possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Mamo & 2 others v Republic [2023] KEHC 23101 (KLR)
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st appellant was found in possession of the firearm and ammunition, as there was a material contradiction between the police and expert evidence regarding the magazine's capacity and the number of rounds allegedly recovered. This discrepancy undermined the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and created doubt as to whether the 1st appellant was actually found with the firearm and ammunition. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd appellants, the court held that there was no evidence that the items allegedly fo…
Source excerpt
Said & another v Republic [2023] KEHC 22273 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to disprove the appellant's alibi and did not provide critical evidence such as the Occurrence Book, call data for the appellant's phones, or CCTV footage to establish the circumstances of arrest and possession of the alleged exhibits. The evidence presented by the prosecution was inconsistent and uncorroborated, particularly regarding the date and circumstances of arrest and recovery of the items. The trial court failed to properly consider the defence of alibi, and the prosecution did not meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases. In l…
Source excerpt
Okwach v Republic [2023] KEHC 2199 (KLR)
The court found that although the appellant was charged under the wrong statutory provision (Section 4A(1)(a) of the Firearms Act), the particulars of the charge and the evidence presented clearly informed him of the nature of the offence and did not prejudice his defense. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was found in possession of a Ceska pistol without a valid firearm certificate. The court held that the right to legal representation at state expense is not absolute and the appellant did not demonstrate substantial injustice or request such representation at…
Source excerpt
Kaibiru v Republic [2022] KEHC 11548 (KLR)
The High Court found that the appellant's conviction was based primarily on an extra-judicial confession obtained in violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards. The police officers who received the confession were not authorized under Section 25A of the Evidence Act, and the confession was neither reduced to writing nor electronically recorded as required by law. The appellant's allegations of torture were not adequately addressed by the trial court, and the prosecution failed to call independent witnesses or provide corroborative evidence such as photographs or fingerprint analysis…
Source excerpt
Mohammed v Republic [2022] KEHC 10589 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against convictions for firearm, ammunition, and government-stores possession, upholding the trial court’s findings and sentence.
Ibrae Umoro Adano v Republic [2022] KEHC 931 (KLR)
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of the firearm and ammunition. The evidence of the police officers was inconsistent and failed to establish a clear link between the appellant and the recovered firearm. The alleged confession was inadmissible as it was not taken before a police officer of the required rank, contrary to Section 29 of the Evidence Act. The contradictions in the prosecution's case and the lack of proper identification or nexus between the appellant and the firearm rendered the conviction unsafe…
Source excerpt
Explore more
