Summary: Rape and sexual assault in Kenya

Submitted by gballinger on Sun, 2011-04-10 22:56
Revised by galmon on Mon, 2012-08-27 09:44

Rape and sexual violence are widespread issues in Kenya, specifically in Nairobi's slums, such as Kibera. Though the Sexual Offences Act harshly criminalizes rape, sexual assault, and even attempted rape, reports have shown that in practice the police do not enforce the illegality of these crimes. Police are reported to actually perpetrate rape against women in the Kibera slums, IDP refugee camps (internally displaced persons), and prisons.1

Due to the high levels of violence, especially after dark, women refuse to leave their homes for fear that they will be attacked. This has led to sanitary issues, including disease, due to the lack of toilet and bathroom facilities in many areas of the slums.2 Since there is a need to walk far to reach such a facility, gender based violence has increased, leading to a vicious cycle of rape and unsanitary conditions.

The slums also have very high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in relation to the rest of the country, because of the high prevalence of gender based violence. The Kibera slum is at 14%, which is almost double the national prevalence rate.3

Case Analysis - Sex Crimes

The categories of cases analyzed were:

  • Discrimination/use of international law (3)
  • Domestic Violence (1)
  • Incest (2)
  • Sexual Assault (2)
  • Rape (5)
  • Defilement (37)

After reviewing the cases that were downloaded, only those that were decided after the passage of the Sexual Offenses Act (SOA) in July 2006 were included in the analysis. Most of the cases were second appeals i.e. on legal issues only.  A few were first appeals and dealt with facts and law.

From these numbers alone, it is immediately obvious that though sexual and gender based violence is widespread throughout Kenya, the justice system is only concentrating on one area – defilement by non-family members.  Either the other cases are not being reported or if reported, not being prosecuted.  To meet international standards, prosecution of other sexual and gender based crimes will need to increase.

The courts from which the appeals came were:

  • Bungoma (1)
  • Eldoret (5)
  • Embu (1)
  • Kisii (6)
  • Kisumu (5)
  • Machakos (3)
  • Mombasa (4)
  • Nairobi (6)
  • Nakuru (11)
  • Nyeri (8)

It seems clear that a large number of appeals came from Nakuru and Nyeri compared to their population. 

No patterns emerged with either the attorneys representing the state or those representing the defendants or with the judges except that Judge Makhandia decided a number of cases in which he allowed no retrial.

Discrimination/Use of International Law

The earliest case deals with a question of whether customary law applies in the division of an estate so that women receive a lesser amount than men. The judge referred to the Constitution that no discrimination is allowed and stated that Kenya subscribes to international customary law and has ratified several international conventions and treaties, including CEDAW and the African Charter (Banjul). Such law is applicable in Kenya as part of domestic law so long as it is not in conflict with existing laws even without specific legislation domesticating the law. Under both Kenyan and international law, customary law cannot be in violation of written law or repugnant to justice and good morality. Since the law in question discriminated against women, it could not stand, and the sisters were entitled to an equal share.4

The second case concerned an issue of child custody and support when the mother had alleged domestic violence against the husband who was a member of Parliament. The husband raised Teso patrilineal custom, but the judge cited CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC). When the father complained these were not domesticated, the judge said the Children’s Act cites to and follows the African Charter on Rights and Welfare of Children that is analogous to CRC and that was the equivalent of domestication.5

The third case returned to the theme of property inheritance. The court said customary law is not static and cannot be repugnant to justice and morality or inconsistent with written law. The court cited the Constitution, CEDAW and other international conventions and ruled that the daughter was entitled to a share of her father’s estate.6 

Domestic Violence

In addition to the child custody case above, the only other case to mention domestic violence was a manslaughter case under 205 of the Penal Code. In 2002, a man admittedly beat his wife with a stick until the neighbor intervened to stop him.  In the hospital she died from a pulmonary oedema due to pneumonia linked to the injuries. The defendant said he was sorry, he had no past record, the four children were at his parents, and he had been in remand for three years.  With no analysis or explanation, the court ordered eighteen more months.7

Incest

One incest case was brought under SOA (20)(1) and the defendant was sentenced to 30 years. He appealed on the basis that his other children would be left with no one to care for them. The court ruled that since they did not specify the age of the victim, the sentence was reduced to 15 years. Age is an element of the crime and must be stated.8

In the second incest case, he was charged with two principal and two alternative counts of indecent acts, with his two daughters, ages 7 and 9. He was convicted of rape of the 7-year-old but not the 9-year-old, because there was no forensic evidence. After three witnesses testified, the prosecution asked to amend the charge to meet the evidence. It was allowed, but the judge did not follow the requirements of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that the magistrate must read the charges and ask the defendant if he wanted any of the witnesses to re-testify.

The court held that failure to give persons their rights is not a procedural irregularity that can be cured, but results in a trial that was substantially flawed and  defective, and the appeal will be granted. The judge further noted that the investigating officer was not called to testify, and though the magistrate noted that the general investigation was very poor and material witnesses did not have recorded statements, he still convicted the defendant. Such a poor investigation, in which the evidence was insufficient, particularly the medical evidence, would indicate reasonable doubt that should exonerate the defendant.9

Sexual Assault

An assault occurred in 2005 on a 7-year-old girl. Because there was no sperm found inside her, they charged the perpetrator with sexual assault rather than defilement. The defendant attacked the evidence since they failed to call the first witness on the scene, failed to introduce the girls soiled pants into evidence, and failed to call the other little girl who was with the victim.10

However, the court said that since the medical evidence proved assault, and there was no question of identification, the other witnesses and evidence was not necessary. The judge found the girl truthful, and therefore her testimony did not need corroboration. The judge dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence from 20 years to 15 years at hard labor, according to the SOA. However, the assault took place before the SOA was in effect and so the Penal Code provisions should have been used for sentencing. No one mentioned that in the appeal.

The second sexual assault case was also legally flawed.11 The defendant appealed on three grounds: defective charge sheet, failure to ascertain age of the child, and insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. The court only dealt with the defective charge sheet because it resolved the case. 

On the charge sheet, the officer had not written that it was an “unlawful” sexual assault. The judge said that the Parliament must had had a reason to use the word “unlawful” in the statute and failure to state in the charge sheet that the assault was “unlawful” is a fatal defect requiring dismissal of charges. 

Rape

Three of the five rape cases were plagued with serious legal error. Proper treatment of witnesses was the legal issue in the first case.12 The defendant was charged with rape under SOA (3)(1 and 3), robbery with violence Penal Code 296(2), and in the alternative indecent acts SOA 11(1). He was convicted on the rape charge and sentenced to 14 years. 

Though he raised four issues on appeal, none of them were addressed by the judge. Instead the judge said that the appeal turned on a narrow and technical aspect of how witnesses are sworn or affirmed.  Witnesses must be sworn unless they are of tender years, and then the procedure of voire dire must be done on the record to ascertain the witnesses ability to testify with sworn or unsworn testimony. From the record, it appears the witnesses were not sworn, therefore the case was dismissed.

In a particularly badly written decision, 13 the appeal was denied though it should have been granted. The defendant was charged with Penal Code 251 causing bodily harm to one woman and Penal Code 144, rape, against another.  He was convicted on both counts.  The event took place in 2007, but in 2007 there was no Penal Code 144, rape. The case has no stated issue, no reasoning and no one mentioned the fact that Penal Code 144 had been repealed. 

Likewise in another case, 14 the defendant had been charged with attempted rape contrary to Penal Code 141 in 2007 when that section had already been repealed. The defendant was found guilty and given 7 years hard labor.  In the appeal he challenged the charge sheet as defective but since he did not attach it, the court dismissed that ground. Counsel mentioned language but did not pursue it. The application for bail was rightly denied as he had no chance of success on the appeal. The court said it was not their job to look for errors in the case. Again no one mentioned that the section under which the defendant was convicted did not exist.  

The issue of language emerges in several cases.15 In one case, the defendant was found guilty of rape under SOA (3)(1) and given 20 years. He was held in court one day past the deadline, but the court said it was not prejudicial or an inordinate delay, nor did he raise it at the first opportunity. He complained about circumstantial evidence, which the judge ignored but instead focused on whether the trial was in the proper language that the defendant could understand. Since the defendant argued the appeal in Kiswahili, the judge determined he could understand it and dismissed the appeal. The judge did reduce the sentence from 20 to 10 years for a first offender.

In an appeal strictly on the sentence after pleading guilty,16 the court ruled that since the sentence was within the range outlined in the SOA, the court had no jurisdiction to overturn the discretion of the judge, because the purpose of the harsh sentences was for extreme deterrence.17

Defilement

The thirty-seven cases on defilement highlight a number of issues focusing on procedural and evidentiary flaws. Procedural problems included holding the defendant more than 24 hours, incorrect plea style, incorrect verification of language, using laws that didn’t exit, and defective charge sheets. The evidentiary issues included the testimony of child victims, the use and introduction of P3 forms, the sufficiency of evidence including medical evidence, and the age of both offender and victim.  Note that not one case used the correct SOA medical form, but all continued to use the P3 form. It is also noteworthy that in many of the cases, the full name of the child victim is printed contrary to the law that protects the names of child victims. 

First the procedural issues will be addressed and then the evidentiary, however many of the cases cover multiple issues and must be read in that light.

Procedural Issues

Magistrates

This case was heard by two different magistrates at different times.  The succeeding magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provisions of 200(3) of CPC and the defendant was prejudiced in his defense.  CPC 200(3) requires that the accused can re-summon and re-hear the entire case, and the court must inform him of that right and record it in the record.  Failure to do so is fatal.18

A magistrate did not allow the defendant to cross examine the first witness, which required remand for a hearing on appeal.19

Holding defendant more than 24 hours before arraignment

Defendant was held for 8 days rather than 24 hours, which is fatal to the case and requires dismissal.20 It is the duty of the prosecution to see that the 24-hour rule is obeyed.  If they don’t, the court must do it.  Another failure of the prosecution in this case was that the victim had an STD, and they never checked to see if the defendant had that same STD. 

In the same court, the defendant was brought to arraignment 6 days after arrest.  State counsel said the defendant had failed to raise the issue earlier, but the judge said it did not matter and also criticized the lower court for not raising it sua sponte. The police had no good excuse and the conviction was set aside.21

Though the defendant was arrested on the 11th and arraigned on the 16th, he did not raise the issue, but the court did sua sponte saying the burden to raise the issue is not on the defendant but on prosecution to come forward with an answer why the defendant was held longer than 24 hours. If the prosecution does not do it, the court must.22

The defendant was held 10 days in jail, 6 after the victim was medically examined.  The police had no explanation except that it was a rural area, and they were busy with other official duties.23 The court held that the 24-hour limit is a fundamental right and is not to be trivialized by the police. 

In addition, the court accepted a guilty plea that was overturned on appeal because the facts did not disclose the offense he was charged with and he only said “true”.  That is not good enough for a guilty plea – the court must have the defendant admit or deny every element of the crime. 

The defendant was arrested on the 18th and arraigned on the 20th.  Based on the violation of the 24-hour rule, he sought dismissal.  The court held that the issue should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and that the court may take note but the court has neither the jurisdiction to terminate the prosecution nor to acquit the accused.  The accused can file for damages against the police. “It would be unconstitutional to acquit an accused person who has not been brought to court either within the period of 24 hours or 14 days.”24

The defendant was held 8 days before arraignment.25 No explanation was given by the prosecution, but the defendant did not raise the issue below.  However, since the defendant did not have an attorney, he is considered illiterate in the law, and the duty is on the trial court and appellate court to protect Constitutional rights.  On that basis alone, the conviction is quashed.

Language

If the record of the trial does not indicate what language the alleged plea was taken in, the trial is a nullity.26

Using SOA when it wasn’t yet passed

The defendant was charged with SOA 8(1) and (2) though the offense took place in October 2005 before the act was passed.  He should have been charged under the Penal Code.  However, no one mentioned this flaw in the case.   The conviction was overturned, because the defendant may have been a minor at the time of commission, and his age was not proven.27

Using Penal Code after it was repealed

In 2008, a man was charged with abduction of a girl under 143 of the Penal Code, defilement of a girl under 114(1) of the Penal Code and an unnatural offence contrary to section 162(1) of the Penal Code.28 The only crime that existed at that time was unnatural offence.  Section 143 and 114 had been repealed.  Nevertheless, his conviction was confirmed but his sentence on defilement reduced from life to 15 years. 

Charge sheets defective

The defendant claimed the charge sheet was defective because the word “unlawfully” was not written on it.29 Compare this case to that in footnote 8 in which the judge dismissed the charges because the word “unlawful” was not written on the charge sheet.  The first case was in Nyeri, and this one in Nairobi. 

In this case, the court held that the charge sheet clearly said the act was contrary to SOA 8(2), and that was sufficient to let the defendant know the act was unlawful.  The P3 was also questioned claiming the drafter was not a medical doctor.  The court stated,  “There is no such requirement that a P3 form must be produced only by a medical doctor.”

Defendant claimed that the charging sheet said “unlawful carnal knowledge” and that is not a proper charge in SOA but was in the repealed Penal Code.  Rather SOA says “causing penetration with a child” and “penetration” is partial or complete insertion.  Using Blacks Law Dictionary, “carnal knowledge” is sexual intercourse.  The judge said the two phrases describe the same thing, that the charging sheet did disclose the offense, and it was not defective or prejudicial.30 The issue of introducing a P3 arose and the court said that under Evidence section 77, a government report can be introduced without the drafter.

The primary issue of this appeal was whether the defendant should have been granted bail because the possibility of success in his appeal was so great.31 The court ruled he should have been granted bail, because the procedures were extremely flawed.  The judge amended the charge sheet, which she can do, but she failed to inform either the prosecution or the defense.  This violated CPC 214(2) that requires not only telling the defendant, but giving him the opportunity to re-question witnesses.  Then the judge sentenced the defendant under the previous charges, not the amended ones.   The court also said that age is a necessary element but that a birth certificate does not prove age.  This is contrary (and nonsensical) to other decisions that have said school records or a doctor’s statement can prove age.  

Potential charges

In a case where the grandfather was charged with defilement under SOA 8(1), he received 10 years in prison.32 However the child was 9 and the statutory penalty for a child under 11 is a life term.  He could also have been charged with incest under SOA 20(1), which is also a life term.  No one mentioned these issues on appeal.

Evidence

From young child

“The record of the trial is most unsatisfactory.  It exhibits glaring omissions as regards the most basic and elementary procedure as expected of a criminal trial record.”33 The record had no information about language or translator and indicated a perfunctory approach to a serious trial before a senior and experienced magistrate. The most serious procedural error was the method of receiving evidence from a child of tender years. The appeals court outlined the proper method:

  •  voire dire the child
  • does the child understand the oath
  • if so, have sworn testimony
  • if not, have unsworn testimony
  • if unsworn, facts must be corroborated by material evidence
  • the record must set out the questions and answers of the child for the appeals court
  • the judge must state on the record what factors satisfied her/him that the child understood the nature of the oath

Failure to follow these steps is fatal to the case.

Under Evidence Article 124, the court held that though the only evidence was that of the victim, a child of 7, if the court determines the victim is truthful, they can convict on that alone.34 Though the medical exam found sperm, they did not confirm that it was his; however, the appeal was rejected. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Though the child identified the defendant as the perpetrator, no evidence to showed that the footsteps her father followed belonged to the defendant who was found sleeping under a tree.  The court did not believe a guilty person would go take a nap after attempting to rape a child.35

The defendant was charged under SOA 8(1-2) for a victim under 10.  The medical examination found no sperm, and the hymen was intact.  With no proof of penetration, the defendant should have been found guilty on the alternative charge of indecent act or attempted defilement.  His sentence was reduced from life to 15 years.36

Defendant attacked uncorroborated evidence of complainant who was 12.  The court said corroboration was not necessary, and anyhow, the medical evidence corroborated.37 In this case the defendant was a blood relative though how close is not stated. But depending on that, incest might have been charged instead. 

“In the absence of medical evidence, the offence of defilement cannot be proved.”38 The magistrate should have activated  Article 179 of CPC to convict of a lesser offense.  Since s/he did not, the appeals court did.  They quashed the conviction of defilement and convicted the defendant of indecent acts with a sentence of 10 years.

Penetration is an important ingredient and must be proved; under Evidence Article 124 “comprehensive corroboration” is no longer needed; and a P3 can be introduced without its drafter under Evidence Article 77.39

Two defendants were convicted of defilement in a case where they had been having sexual relations with girls 6 and 9 for nearly a year.  They gave the girls clothes, food and money.  When school officials noticed the girls with money and questioned them, the story unfolded.   The medical evidence showed that both girls were HIV positive.  Their names were plainly printed in the decision, which is an extraordinary breach of confidentiality especially since they were such young girls and HIV positive.  This is even more surprising in light of the later remarks of the court, “Allegations of sexual offences bring fear and stigma to the victim.”  If the court understood that, why were the names and HIV status of two children printed in the decision?  Because the men were not HIV positive, the court said they could not prove penetration and so set aside the defilement convictions, convicted them on indecent acts and gave them 5 years.

Other legal issues in the case were the testimony of children, which the judge dispatched with section 124 of Evidence.  The court held that the identification was flawed as there was no identification “parade” for the second man who the girls knew by sight not by name, so his appeal was allowed.  This reasoning seems flawed since they had been having relations with him for nearly a year and certainly could identify him.

The fact that the men were held 11 days in jail and not 24 hours was not a reason to throw out the convictions.  The court said there is a long line of cases on that issue and each case is to be considered on its merits.  The issue of delay should have been raised earlier so it could be explained, the defendant did not explain how he was prejudiced by it, and he can sue the police for any damages.  “The victim of the offence also has rights and the expectation by the society is that the rule of law must always be observed.”

Age

Failing to prove the age of the victim is a serious omission in the prosecution case resulting in dismissal since there is no crime if she’s over 18 and different sentences depending on her age.40 Failure to determine her age means the benefit of the doubt is given to the defendant.41 In one case, they also charged child trafficking under SOA 18(1) but did not meet the elements of the charge to sustain it.

Since Parliament put age in the SOA, age is a necessary ingredient of the charge and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.42 However, the provisions of the SOA are amenable to the test of “failure of justice” provided for in CPC section 381 that there will be no reversal unless the error caused a failure of justice.  The court can also look at whether the issue should have been raised earlier. 

In this case, the court found that the issue should have been raised earlier and that the error did not cause a failure of justice.  Whether the victim was below 16 or between 12-15 had no impact on reasonable doubt or sentencing.  Since it was not proven that she was between 12-15, she could have been over 15, and therefore the defendant received the lesser sentence of 15 years. 

The court pointed out that the law has a lacuna in SOA Article 8(2) and (3), because it does not designate what happens when the victim is more than 11 but less than 12 or more than 15 but not yet 16.    

The age of the offender is important as well as the age of the victim.  The court failed to ascertain the age of the offender.43 He was sentenced to life though he may have been under 18 at the time of the crime.  The SOA does not authorize imprisonment of minors. Instead, they have to be sentenced in accordance with the Children’s Act and the Borstal Institutions Act.  The case was remanded for evidence of age.

Summary of Holdings

Each element of a crime must be proven or if a plea, explained and admitted.  Charge sheets can be amended by the prosecutor or the judge, but they must follow the procedures of CPC 214 necessitating a potential re-trial.  To save time and expense, the prosecutor should ensure that charges are proper at the start. Prosecutors should be alert to charging or sentencing under incorrect or non-existent laws. Prosecutor must pay attention so that mistakes of others, both police and judges, don’t result in dismissal of case.

Child testimony is acceptable without corroboration, but the court must follow the strict rules about how to admit that evidence and put it on the record.  The language used must be clear on the record as well as the fact that the defendant understood it.

Medical evidence is necessary to prove penetration. While it is clear a P3 can be introduced without the original drafter or even a witness, the SOA requires a different form that no one was using.

The evolution of the 24-hour rule is clear.  If there is an attorney, the issue should be raised at the first available opportunity or waived.  If there is no attorney, the prosecution or court should raise it sua sponte at any time.  If the police have a good reason, they may prevail.  If not, the case will be dismissed.

  • 1. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135959.htm#
  • 2. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR32/002/2010/en/12a9d334-0b62-40e1-ae4a-e5333752d68c/afr320022010en.pdf
  • 3. Id.
  • 4. Andrew Manunzyu Musyoka (Deceased ) (2005) High Court at Machakos, Succession Cause 303 of 1998
  • 5. S.O. v. L.A.M. (2009) Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Appeal 175 of 2006
  • 6. In Re the Estate of Mugo Wandia (Deceased) (2009 High Court at Nakuru, Succession Cause 320 of 2007
  • 7. Republic v. Mudala Okuku Odindo (2005) In the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa, Criminal Case 10 of 2003
  • 8. Mwangi Kamau v. Republic (2008) High Court at Nakuru, Criminal Appeal 85 of 2008
  • 9. Daniel Murimi Maina v. Republic, High Court at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 199 of 2008
  • 10. Fred Michael Bwayo v. Republic (2009) Court of Appeal at Eldoret, Criminal Appeal 130 of 2007
  • 11. Charles Karuga Kinyua v. Republic (2009), High Court at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 319 of 2008
  • 12. Charles Wanjohi Murange v. Republic (2010), High Court at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 164 of 2007
  • 13. Isaya Omondi Nyawala v. Republic, (2008) High Court of Kisil, Criminal Appeal of 2007
  • 14. Nelson Asega Kisia v. Republic, High Court at Eldoret, Criminal Appeal 23 of 2008
  • 15. Solomon Kahi Mwanga v. Republic (2008), High Court of Kisumu, Criminal Appeal 36 of 2008
  • 16. John Rukwaro Macharia v. Republic (2009) High Court at Nakuru, Criminal Appeal 62 of 2008
  • 17. Benson Songoi Maembe v. Republic (2010) High Cout at Nakuru, Criminal Appeal 314 of 2008
  • 18. Martin Mwangi Gatu v. Republic (2010) High Court at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 22 of 2009
  • 19. Joseph Imana Kaleng v. Republic (2011) Court of Appeal at Eldoret, Criminal Appeal 199 of 201017
  • 20. Stephen Maina Njui v. Republic (2009) High Court at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 128 of 2007
  • 21. Peter Ithebu Mwangi, High Court at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 220 of 2007
  • 22. Abdul Aziz Mohammed v. Republic (2008) High Court of Kisii, Criminal Appeal 148 of 2007
  • 23. Zachary Otienko Kibusu v. Republic (2009) High Court of Kisil, Criminal Appeal 28 of 2008, Dave Odhiambo Oongo v. Republic (2009) High Court of Kisii, Criminal Appeal 34 of 2008
  • 24. James Maina Manene v. Republic (2010)  High Court of Nakuru, Criminal Appeal of 2009
  • 25. Denis Kabembe Mzinga v. Republic (2010) High Court at Mombasa Criminal Appeal 29 of 2008
  • 26. Republic v. Francis Kivai Kitonyi (2008), High Court at Machakos, Criminal Misc. Appli. 45 of 2008
  • 27. Silas Ogoro Nyakweri v. Republic (2008), High Court of Kisii, Criminal Appeal 196 of 2007
  • 28. Anthony Mwangi Migwi v. Republic (2009) Court of Appeal at Nyeri, Criminal Appeal 351 of 2007
  • 29. Raphael Kavoi Kiilu v. Republic (2010) Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Criminal Appeal 198 of 2008
  • 30. Josphat Njue Solomon v. Republic (2010) High Court at Embu, Criminal Appeal 187 of 2008
  • 31. Jon Cardon Wagner v. Republic, High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Criminal Appeal 404 of 2009
  • 32. Philip Otieno Ojwang v. Republic (2008), High Court of Kisii, Criminal Appeal 200 of 2007
  • 33. John Njenga Kamau v. Republic (2009), Court of Appeal at Nakuru, Criminal Appeal 278 of 200831
  • 34. Robert Njuguna Mungai v. Republic (2008), High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Criminal Appeal 262 of 2007
  • 35. Warsame Aden Yarrow v. Republic (2009), High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts), Criminal Appeal 69 of 2008
  • 36. Daniel Maraba v. Republic (2008) High Court at Nakuru, Constitutional Reference 189 of 2008
  • 37. Ali Mwaro Mganga v. Republic (2009), Court of Appeal at Mombasa, Criminal Appeal 85 of 2008
  • 38. Joseph Ikaunyi Emase v. Republic (2010) High Court at Bungoma, Criminal Appeal 68 of 2009
  • 39. Jacob Odhiambo Omumbo v. Republic (2008) Court of Appeal at Kisumu, Criminal Appeal 80 of 2008
  • 40. Thomas Kwanya Dzombo v. Republic (2010) High Court at Mombasa, Criminal Appeal 167 of 2009, Abdisalan Burale Abdi v.Republic (2008) High Court of Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Criminal Appeal 82 of 2008
  • 41. Kenneth Kilangat Rono v. Republic (2010) Court of Appeal at Nakuru, Criminal Appeal 66 of 2009
  • 42. Alfayo Gombe Okello v. Republic (2010) Court of Appeal at Kisumu, Criminal Appeal 203 of 2009
  • 43. Dennis Abuya v. Republic (2010) Court of Appeal at Kisumu, Criminal Appeal 164 of 2009