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
Musoga v Republic [2025] KEHC 10393 (KLR)
The High Court held that the appellant’s guilty plea was unequivocal and that the trial court properly imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 10 years.
Ssekajigo v Republic [2025] KEHC 7069 (KLR)
The court held that it cannot entertain a revision application on sentence after the same sentence has been considered and upheld on appeal. The grounds advanced by the applicant—reformation, remorse, and family hardship—are not recognized as valid legal bases for revision under the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision jurisdiction is limited to correcting illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the proceedings or sentence, none of which were demonstrated in this case. The application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed.
Source excerpt
ODPP v Juma [2025] KEHC 6999 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court erred by not specifying whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. Applying section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, and relevant case law, the court determined that counts I, II, and III were committed at the same time and place, forming a single transaction, and thus their sentences should run concurrently. Count V, however, was committed on a different date and in a different transaction, warranting a consecutive sentence. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to correct the error…
Source excerpt
Republic v Kabughu [2025] KEHC 5954 (KLR)
The High Court revised a criminal sentence to add a repatriation order for a Tanzanian convict after finding the trial court had omitted it.
Githonga v Republic [2025] KEHC 4248 (KLR)
The conviction for possession of articles connected with the commission of a terrorist act was safe because the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in actual control and management of the premises where the articles were found, that the articles contained videos intended to instigate or facilitate terrorist acts, and that the appellant had knowledge of the contents based on the correlation with items found at his residence.
Source excerpt
Mahamud alias Twalib v Republic [2025] KEHC 1691 (KLR)
The conviction and sentence for being in possession of components of an improvised explosive device were quashed because the evidence presented by the prosecution's own experts indicated that the items found were commonly found in households and, crucially, a critical explosive component necessary for detonation was missing, failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the items were components of an IED as defined by the relevant legislation and intended for terrorism purposes.
Source excerpt
Takow v Republic [2024] KEHC 16214 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The only evidence against the appellant was his presence in the prison camp and his Somali origin, with no concrete evidence linking him to the collection of information for terrorist purposes or membership in a terrorist group. No incriminating materials or devices were found on him, and his explanation for being in the camp was reasonable. The conviction was based on suspicion and speculation rather than evidence. As such, the conviction was unsafe and could not be sustained.
Source excerpt
Republic v Ali & 2 others [2024] KEHC 10969 (KLR)
The High Court held that it had jurisdiction to revise the trial court's decision because the impugned ruling, though penned by a judge, was delivered in magisterial capacity with the Chief Justice's authority. On the merits, the court found that the exclusion of electronic evidence obtained without a warrant was improper in the exceptional context of terrorism offences. The court reasoned that the urgency and gravity of the Dusit D2 terrorist attack, the voluntary surrender of devices by the accused, and the statutory framework under the Prevention of Terrorism Act justified the admission of…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecution v Abdi & 2 others [2024] KEHC 8818 (KLR)
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide compelling reasons to deny bail to the 1st and 2nd respondents, both of whom are Kenyan citizens with fixed abodes and no evidence of being flight risks or likely to interfere with witnesses. The seriousness of the terrorism charges alone was insufficient to justify denial of bail. However, the 3rd respondent, an Ethiopian national, had pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in Kenya, lacked a fixed abode, and presented a real risk of absconding, making it difficult to trace him if he fled. Therefore, the trial court's grant of bail t…
Source excerpt
Haji v Republic [2024] KEHC 8738 (KLR)
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, quashing convictions tied to alleged travel to Somalia and related immigration offences for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Explore more
