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
Nyongesa v Republic [2025] KEHC 10693 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal over defilement, upholding conviction and the 20-year minimum sentence under the Sexual Offences Act.
Mbaya v Republic [2025] KEHC 9370 (KLR)
The High Court upheld a defilement conviction, finding the complainant’s age, penetration, and identification proved, and dismissed the appeal.
Mutegi v Republic [2025] KEHC 9433 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a defilement appeal, holding that the complainant was a minor, penetration was proved, and the defence was an afterthought.
Ngeno v Republic [2025] KECA 1079 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction on second appeal is confined to matters of law. The complainant's age was conclusively proved by the production of a birth certificate and corroborated by oral evidence, establishing she was 14 years old at the time of the offence. Penetration was established through the complainant's testimony and medical evidence, which confirmed injuries consistent with recent sexual activity. The appellant was properly identified as the perpetrator by both the complainant and her father, and his defence was found to be an afterthought. The failure to call W.…
Source excerpt
Githaiga v Republic [2025] KECA 1138 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that all the essential elements of the offence of defilement were proved beyond reasonable doubt: the complainant was a child under the relevant age bracket, penetration was established through medical and testimonial evidence, and the appellant was positively identified as the perpetrator. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence, as this issue was raised for the first time on second appeal and had already been settled by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the l…
Source excerpt
Otieno alias Daddy v Republic [2025] KEHC 7399 (KLR)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a defilement conviction, finding the prosecution had not proved penetration or the complainant’s age beyond reasonable doubt.
Njagi v Republic [2025] KEHC 7147 (KLR)
The High Court at Kerugoya dismissed a criminal appeal against a defilement conviction, finding age, penetration and identification proved beyond reasonable doubt.
TCA v Republic [2025] KEHC 6737 (KLR)
The court found that while the age of the complainant was sufficiently proved by the birth certificate, and the identification of the appellant as the alleged perpetrator was not in dispute, the prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence presented, including the presence of epithelial cells, lacerations, and blood stains, was not conclusive proof of penetration as defined under Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act. The complainant's description of the act, though consistent with general parlance for defilement, was insufficient on its own without cor…
Source excerpt
Bwire v Republic [2025] KEHC 7159 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the element of penetration, which is essential for the offence of defilement under section 8(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act. The complainant did not testify to penetration, and the medical evidence was inconclusive, with the only finding being a missing hymen without evidence of recent loss or direct linkage to the alleged incident. The court held that without proof of penetration, the conviction could not stand. The court also addressed the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, noting that the Supreme Court had affirmed their consti…
Source excerpt
Gichuki v Republic [2025] KEHC 6973 (KLR)
The High Court found that the prosecution proved all elements of the offence of defilement beyond reasonable doubt: the complainant was under 18 years old at the time of the offence, penetration was established through both the complainant's testimony and corroborating medical evidence of pregnancy, and the appellant was positively identified as the perpetrator through evidence of cohabitation. The court held that minor contradictions in the prosecution's evidence were peripheral and did not prejudice the appellant. The absence of a DNA test was not fatal, as medical and testimonial evidence…
Source excerpt
Explore more
