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
The High Court allowed the appellants’ criminal appeal, quashed the convictions for robbery with violence, and set aside the 20-year sentences.
Esese v Director of Public Prosecutions (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13049 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The petition failed because the issues around conviction and sentence had already been litigated and determined through the trial court, High Court appeal and Court of Appeal, leaving no jurisdictional basis for this Court to reopen the matter by way of constitutional petition. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate new and compelling evidence for Article 50(6), and the petition was in substance an attempt to relitigate a concluded sentence; accordingly, res judicata and finality barred relief.
Source excerpt
Wanyonyi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E025 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13042 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the charge, even if complained of as duplex, did not occasion a miscarriage of justice; the evidence proved stealing, actual violence, and participation by the appellant with others; PW1 knew the appellant and recognized him in broad daylight; and the sentence was lawful and proportionate. The conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
Mutunga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E015 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12951 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The conviction was upheld because the robbery with violence ingredients were clearly proved, and the appellant was linked to the offence by cogent circumstantial evidence: a Ceska pistol recovered from him was forensically matched to the spent cartridges and bullets recovered from the scene and the victims. The alleged contradictions on serial number and timing of recovery were minor and did not displace the prosecution case. Since the chain of circumstantial evidence remained intact and the appellant offered no explanation, the appeal failed.
Source excerpt
Koech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E063 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 13077 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the evidence established all elements of robbery with violence through armed group attack and actual violence, and the complainant's and other witnesses' evidence showed reliable recognition of the appellant by appearance, clothing, dreadlocks, voice and the circumstances of the attack. The rape charge was also proved by the victim's direct testimony and surrounding evidence despite the medical and identification objections. The omission of some witnesses and the investigating officer did not weaken the case, the defence was considered and rejected as a denial, and t…
Source excerpt
Omwoyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12800 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court, after re-evaluating the record as a first appellate court, held that the evidence of multiple witnesses on the armed home invasions and the appellant’s recognition was sufficient to prove robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt, and that the rape conviction on Count VIII was also supported by the complainant’s evidence despite the lack of injurious medical findings. However, Count IX was unsafe because the evidence did not sufficiently link the appellant to the rape of PW5, who in fact said he did not rape her. The consecutive sentences were upheld because the offences were s…
Source excerpt
Oremo v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E024 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12487 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application was incompetent because the Applicant’s conviction and sentence had already been conclusively affirmed through the appellate hierarchy, including the Court of Appeal, and the High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to reopen, vary, or review the sentence. Any constitutional complaints required a properly filed constitutional petition, not a miscellaneous criminal application.
Source excerpt
Mochana v Republic (Criminal Appeal E040 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1656 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the concurrent findings on identification and conviction were supported by evidence, the appellant’s challenge to the identification parade was an afterthought and unfounded, and the mandatory death sentence for robbery with violence remained lawful; therefore, there was no basis to interfere with either conviction or sentence.
Source excerpt
Nyakundi v Republic (Criminal Revision Application E197 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12920 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application sought review of a sentence that had already been fully served. Because the applicant had been released from prison, the matter was moot and the court dismissed the application as overtaken by events.
Source excerpt
Muchangi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E025 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12343 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved that the complainant was robbed and violently assaulted by a group of three assailants, that the appellant was positively recognized by the complainant under sufficient lighting while he wielded a panga and attempted to slash the complainant, and that the attack was executed in concert with others. Those facts satisfied the elements of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s unsupported claim that he was framed did not displace the prosecution case. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
