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
Odoyo v Republic [2025] KEHC 10147 (KLR)
High Court allowed an application to have pre-sentence custody counted toward a 20-year sentence, directing that time spent in custody be included under section 333(2).
Ongana v Republic [2025] KEHC 9284 (KLR)
The High Court revised a sentence to account for pre-sentence custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered the term to run from the custody date.
Ndulu v Republic [2025] KEHC 6601 (KLR)
The High Court held that remand custody time had to be considered when computing a default custodial sentence after a fine, and ordered the sentence to run from the arrest date.
Yegon v Republic [2025] KECA 857 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal set aside a High Court sentence enhancement from 10 to 15 years because the appellant had not been warned or heard on the increase.
Mangale v Republic [2025] KEHC 5028 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to consider the period the Applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing. The record showed no indication that the trial court took the 20 months spent in custody into account. This omission constituted a breach of an express statutory provision. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and ordered that the Applicant's 10-year sentence should be computed from the date of his arrest, thereby crediting the period spent in remand custod…
Source excerpt
Karanja v Republic [2025] KEHC 4249 (KLR)
The High Court held that the petitioner’s pre-trial custody had to be counted in his 10-year sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Mutuma v Republic [2025] KEHC 4018 (KLR)
The court must take into account the period an accused person has spent in custody prior to conviction when determining the sentence, and failure to do so renders the sentence irregular and subject to revision by the High Court.
Source excerpt
Republic v Karanja [2025] KEHC 3110 (KLR)
The High Court held that a charge for firearm and ammunition possession was not vitiated by citing section 4(1) instead of section 4(2) of the Firearms Act.
Biruri v Republic [2025] KECA 375 (KLR)
The conviction was unsafe because the identification of the perpetrator was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt due to the compendium of major inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and the lack of a proper identification parade, which was crucial given the complainant did not know the appellant prior to the incident. Additionally, the enhancement of the sentence by the High Court was illegal as it was done without proper notice or a cross-appeal, violating the appellant's constitutional rights.
Source excerpt
Wanje v Republic [2025] KEHC 3540 (KLR)
The High Court at Malindi allowed a criminal revision and reduced the applicant’s sentence by the time he spent in remand custody before conviction.
Explore more
