Republic v Chacha & 2 others (Criminal Case E122 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 261 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kehancha court convicted three men of assault causing bodily harm after consistent, corroborated witness testimony overcame their unsupported claim of self-defence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Complainant sustained injuries amounting to harm
- 2.Whether the said injuries if any were caused by Accused unlawfully
- 3.Whether the Accused defence is reasonable
Key legal issues
#Whether the complainant sustained injuries amounting to harm
Proved to the required standard; medical evidence confirmed injuries caused by a sharp object, classified as harm
The complainant described multiple injuries to the forehead, head, left shoulder, neck, back and left hand. The clinical officer's evidence corroborated the complainant, confirming deep cut wounds of two days' age caused by a sharp object and classified the degree of injury as harm under the Penal Code.
Whether the injuries were caused by the accused unlawfully
Yes - the accused were positively identified by PW1 and PW2 as the attackers
The complainant placed the accused at the scene and his evidence was corroborated by PW2, who found the accused armed with a knife, metal rod and panga inside the locked house with the injured complainant. The evidence was direct, consistent and unchallenged, and pointed to the accused as those who unlawfully attacked and injured the complainant.
Whether the accused's defence was reasonable
Rejected; the defence did not challenge the prosecution evidence
The accused gave unsworn defences claiming they were themselves attacked at a ceremony, but none indicated where they were injured. Their defences did not shake the consistent, direct and corroborated prosecution evidence, which the court found watertight, and were therefore rejected.
Legal principles established
#- The essential elements of assault causing actual bodily harm are an assault upon the victim occasioning actual bodily harm, requiring mens rea and the actus reus of the assault
Court orders
#- 1.The accused persons were found guilty as charged with the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code
- 2.The accused persons were convicted under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original criminal jurisdiction under section 251 of the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code
Relief refused
#The accused persons' defence that they themselves were attacked
The defence did not challenge the prosecution evidence and none of the accused stated where they were injured
Costs
Not applicable - criminal matter; no costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In conclusion I find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and find the accused persons guilty as charged with the ofience of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code.
In the end I hereby convict them under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The essential elements of the ofience of assault causing actual bodily harm are; i. Assaulting the Complainant or Victim ii. Occasioning actual bodily harm
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 7 July 2026 on facts said to have occurred on 7 March 2026, both dates in the future relative to typical records; dates transcribed as printed
The court stated it was convicting of assault causing 'actual bodily harm' while the medical evidence classified the injuries as 'harm', a lesser degree under the Penal Code
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Chacha & 2 others (Criminal Case E122 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/261/eng@2026-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.