Lord Widgery Beta
Read this first — limitations.
- Patterns reflect published decisions only.
- This is not an assessment of private character, integrity or bias.
- Outcome distributions are per case-type and not comparable across courts/years.
- Based on 68 decision(s); small samples are indicative only.
- Name normalization is automatic and may merge or split judges incorrectly.
Main subject areas
Activity
Published decisions from 1998 to 2026; busiest year 2019 (16 decisions).
Documented outcomes by case type
- Criminal Appeal: Appeal dismissed (11); Affirmed (10); Affirmed the conviction and sentence (3); The appeal was dismissed. (3)
- Criminal: Guilty (5); Not guilty (2); The appeal was dismissed. (2); Not Guilty (2)
- Judicial Review: The application is struck out with no order as to costs. (1)
Counts are per published decision as classified by AI; not comparable across courts or years.
Most-cited legislation
- Penal Code (18)
- Section 296(2) of the Penal Code (5)
- Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006 (4)
- Sexual Offences Act, 2006 (4)
- Evidence Act (4)
- Criminal Procedure Code (4)
- Sexual Offences Act (3)
- Section 203 of the Penal Code (3)
Documented reasoning patterns
- Most common procedural postures: First Appeal (12), Appeal from conviction and sentence (11), Appeal from the original trial (8)
- [Criminal] outcomes — Guilty: 5/20, Not Guilty: 2/20, Not guilty: 2/20, The appeal was dismissed.: 2/20
- [Criminal Appeal] outcomes — Appeal dismissed: 8/41, Affirmed: 7/41, The appeal was dismissed.: 3/41, Affirmed the conviction and sentence: 3/41
- [Appeal] outcomes — The appeal is upheld and the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate is set aside.: 1/1
- [Judicial Review] outcomes — Judgment quashed the decision to roll out Huduma Cards.: 1/5, The suit is struck out with costs to the 2nd respondent.: 1/5, The application is struck out with no order as to costs.: 1/5, The application was dismissed.: 1/5
- [Petition for Judicial Review] outcomes — Dismissed with costs: 1/1
Writing characteristics
- Median judgment length ~23274 words
- Includes panel decisions
Remedy patterns
- Remand for retrial (2)
- Each party bears its own costs (1)
- Set appellant at liberty (1)
- Set at liberty (1)
- Reconsideration of the case by the trial court (1)
Citation patterns
- Avg cited authorities/decision: 2.0
- Frequently applied statutes: Penal Code (16), Evidence Act (4), Sexual Offences Act, 2006 (4), Sexual Offences Act No 3 of 2006 (4), Section 203 of the Penal Code (3)
Sample decisions
REPUBLIC v GANSHYAM CHOTABARI PATEL [1998] KEHC 46 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [1998] KEHC 46 (KLR) · 1 October 1998
REPUBLIC. OF KENYA. V.J v GANSHYAM CHOTABARIPATEL [1998] KEHC 9 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [1998] KEHC 9 (KLR) · 1 October 1998
REPUBLIC v MUTABARI MITHIKA (Criminal Case 77 of 2003) [2011] KEHC 781 (KLR) (24 November 2011) (Judgment)
High Court of Kenya · [2011] KEHC 781 (KLR) · 24 November 2011
REPUBLIC v MUTABARI MITHIKA (Criminal Case 77 of 2003) [2011] KEHC 919 (KLR) (24 November 2011) (Judgment)
High Court of Kenya · [2011] KEHC 919 (KLR) · 24 November 2011
Lomoru Iyapan v Republic [2015] KEHC 796 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2015] KEHC 796 (KLR)
Nahaman Kirimi Ikamati v Republic [2016] KEHC 493 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2016] KEHC 493 (KLR)
Titus Wambua v Republic [2016] KEHC 6693 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2016] KEHC 6693 (KLR)
Ronald Khamasi Shikoma & another v Republic [2016] KEHC 7038 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2016] KEHC 7038 (KLR)
Republic v Pakisen Lengombiro Moile [2018] KEHC 2719 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2018] KEHC 2719 (KLR) · 2 November 2018
John Githitu Njugo v Republic [2018] KEHC 374 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2018] KEHC 374 (KLR) · 23 October 2018