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
Poghisio v Republic [2025] KEHC 10437 (KLR)
The High Court reduced a 10-year sentence for grievous harm to 6 years, holding that the appellant’s guilty plea and the circumstances made the original term excessive.
Kibet v Republic [2025] KEHC 10105 (KLR)
The High Court declined to review a 5-year sentence to probation, finding the applicant was a repeat offender with no fixed abode and unsuitable for supervision.
Maina v Republic [2025] KEHC 9473 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment for the offence of stealing under section 275 of the Penal Code, which prescribes a maximum sentence of three years unless aggravating factors are present. The trial court did not indicate any such aggravating factors or provide reasons for exceeding the statutory maximum. Consequently, the sentence was both excessive and unlawful. The High Court therefore set aside the five-year sentence and substituted it with a three-year sentence in accordance with the law. On the issue of a non-custodial sentence, the cour…
Source excerpt
Bowen v Republic [2025] KEHC 9672 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of 7 years' imprisonment for the offence of stock theft was not harsh or excessive, given that the applicant was a repeat offender and the pre-sentence report was unfavorable, describing him as a habitual stock thief and a menace to his community. The court held that while mitigation, proportionality, and fairness are important, other sentencing objectives such as deterrence and community protection were also relevant. The applicant's age was not considered a sufficient ground for sentence reduction, especially in light of his recidivism. However, the court f…
Source excerpt
Chirau v Republic [2025] KEHC 8982 (KLR)
The High Court at Kapenguria varied a criminal sentence after finding the original four-year term was unlawful because it did not specify the count.
Republic v Mwakaru [2025] KEHC 8966 (KLR)
The court found that the accused, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a plea bargain, was entitled to consideration of mitigating factors such as his plea and saving the court's time. However, the court also considered the aggravating factors, including the accused's prior conviction for assault, the unfavourable pre-sentence report, and the community's apprehension regarding his release. The court determined that the accused had not learned from previous sentences and that a non-custodial sentence was inappropriate. Balancing the seriousness of the offence, the statutory maximum, and…
Source excerpt
Wanjiku v Republic [2025] KEHC 7454 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the Applicant to nine months' imprisonment without the option of a fine. The Applicant was a repeat offender, and the pre-sentence report was unfavorable, noting her lack of interest in a non-custodial sentence. The trial court was aware of the Applicant's prior conviction and fine for a similar offence. The law under section 27 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act allows for either a fine or imprisonment, but the court is not obliged to offer a fine where circumstances do not warrant it. The sentencing p…
Source excerpt
Neta v Republic [2025] KEHC 6415 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a sentence-only appeal for stock theft, holding that a three-year prison term was lawful and fitting for a repeat offender.
Abdullahi v Republic [2025] KEHC 3896 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant's plea of guilty was properly taken in accordance with legal procedure, he understood the charges, the trial was not conducted with undue haste, and the sentence was within the statutory limits and a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion, taking into account his status as a repeat offender.
Source excerpt
Republic v Morara [2025] KEHC 3805 (KLR)
The accused's application for review of the bail/bond decision was dismissed because the compelling reasons for denying bail/bond still exist, as evidenced by his prior convictions and ongoing cases, and there has been no change in circumstances to warrant a variation of the previous order.
Source excerpt
Explore more
