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
High Court revision on a cheating sentence: conviction was upheld, the fine-and-default imprisonment structure was found lawful, and custody credit of two days was ordered.
Criminal appeal judgment from the High Court at Nakuru in Samuel Mwangi Nderitu v Republic. The decision text provided is still being processed, so the substantive outcome is not available.
The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions for dealing in and possessing elephant tusks, holding the prosecution proved the Wildlife Act offences.
Kivandi v Republic (Criminal Revision E017 of 2026)
The High Court revised an illegal traffic sentence, reducing a Kshs.500,000 fine to Kshs.50,000 while leaving the guilty plea conviction intact.
Kimilu v Republic (Criminal Revision E011 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13044 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 13044 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Nyongesa v Republic (Criminal Appeal E039 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 13029 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the prosecution proved penetration, the ages of the complainants, and the appellant’s recognition beyond reasonable doubt; the alleged charge-sheet defect was merely formal and caused no prejudice; the evidence was consistent and mutually corroborative; and the sentences were lawful, with life imprisonment mandatory for the first count and the second count sentence not warranting interference.
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
Odhiambo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E145 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1666 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the complainant’s age, penetration, and the appellant’s identity were all proved by the evidence and the two lower courts made concurrent findings of fact warranting no interference. The appellant’s attempt to recharacterize the evidence as attempted defilement failed because partial penetration is sufficient in law. The challenge to the charge sheet was not raised below and in any event had no merit. The 20-year sentence was lawful because it was the mandatory minimum for defilement of a child aged 12 to 15 years, but the sentence was ordered to run from 9 July 2018 when…
Source excerpt
Mundia v Republic (Criminal Application E027 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1578 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court exercised discretion to extend time because the roughly six-month delay, though inordinate, was sufficiently explained by the applicant’s imprisonment and difficulty obtaining proceedings, the intended appeal was not frivolous, and the respondent showed no prejudice. However, the applicant failed to prove inability to pay court fees, so relief from fees was not granted outright and was left to a means inquiry by the Deputy Registrar.
Source excerpt
Explore more
