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
Kiplangat v Tuwei & another (Civil Appeal E256 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13180 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court set aside an ex parte small claims judgment, holding that the appellant had not been properly heard and ordering a retrial before a different adjudicator.
Mbilo v Republic (Criminal Revision E025 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13021 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the original release terms, though not unreasonable, warranted review because the matter had stalled for an extended period due to missing files, the prosecution did not oppose the application, and justice required balancing the applicant’s compromised liberty against the need to secure future attendance. The bond conditions were therefore relaxed to one surety instead of two.
Source excerpt
Kenya Forest Service v Kiniaru (Environment and Land Appeal E030 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5035 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal could not succeed on the complaint that the trial court ignored documentary material that had never been formally admitted in evidence. However, because the trial court gave no reasons for refusing to reopen the defence case and the core dispute concerned whether the land was unlawfully hived off forest/public land, the interests of justice required a retrial so the defence could be heard and the public-land issue determined on evidence.
Source excerpt
Mwaringa v Republic (Criminal Appeal E044 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11761 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the trial court failed to record the appellant’s defence, leaving the appellate court unable to examine it. That omission was a fatal breach of the appellant’s fair trial rights under Article 50(2), making the conviction unsafe. Although retrial was contemplated, it was declined due to the seriousness of the offence and the time already spent in custody, which would further prejudice the appellant.
Source excerpt
Republic v Mohamed (Criminal Revision E047 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11180 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court examined the lower court record, its earlier judgment, and the respondent’s appeal submissions and found that the earlier decision proceeded on the mistaken assumption that two different magistrates handled the trial. That was an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting correction.
Source excerpt
Wachira v Republic (Criminal Revision E024 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11066 (KLR) (20 July 2026) (Ruling)
The plea recorded as 'It is true' was equivocal because the trial court failed to show that the charge and its ingredients were properly explained in a known language, failed to record the accused's exact words and the interpreter particulars, and failed to have the prosecution state readable facts before conviction. The sentence of 2 years imprisonment was illegal because the statute capped punishment at a fine not exceeding Ksh 100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both. Given that the applicant had already served a substantial part of the maximum lawful sentence, and a retrial…
Source excerpt
Sang v Sang (Civil Appeal E077 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 9576 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling)
The appeal succeeded because the trial record was materially defective: the Small Claims Court was treated as lacking pecuniary jurisdiction for a claim whose own pleadings admitted an amount above the statutory ceiling, the trial court failed to properly account for substantial documentary evidence of payments totalling Kshs 2,225,540, and the dispute involved Petko Ltd rather than Peter Tanui personally without any basis for lifting the corporate veil. The proper remedy was a retrial before a competent court.
Source excerpt
ODPP v Musyoka (Criminal Revision E034 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9984 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling)
The trial court committed a procedural error by placing the accused on his defence and receiving his defence before the prosecution had closed its case and before compliance with sections 210 and 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The record showed no proper finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case. That irregularity violated the parties' right to fair hearing and justified revisionary intervention, setting aside the judgment and acquittal and remitting the matter for retrial before a different magistrate from the stage of PW3's evidence.
Source excerpt
Bonaya v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E036 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7260 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Ruling)
The plea was equivocal because the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry into the Applicant’s mental capacity before accepting the guilty plea, despite indications that he was on rehabilitation and may not have understood the proceedings. That irregularity made the conviction improper. However, a retrial was declined because the Applicant had already been incarcerated for about one month and twenty days and, on the facts, a retrial would not serve the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
Harrison v Republic (Criminal Appeal E112 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 11175 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Judgment)
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to any sentence imposed after the accused has been held in custody before that sentence, including a sentence imposed following a retrial. The court rejected the respondent’s distinction between the original trial and the retrial and held that all custody time before the final sentence must be credited in sentence computation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
