Kenya Case Law

Bwana v Al-Kamar Trading Company Limited

Bwana v Al-Kamar Trading Company Limited (Civil Case E757 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 817 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E757 of 2025

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The court found that although service was disputed and not conclusively proved, the dispute need not be finally resolved because the court retained discretion under Order 10 Rule 11 to set aside the default judgments. The Defendant moved promptly after learning of execution, its draft defence raised a bona fide triable issue on liability and contributory negligence, and justice was better served by reopening the suit on terms. The judgments were therefore set aside subject to security of KShs. 400,000, with the Defendant required to file its defence within 14 days.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside default judgment
• Service of summons on a corporation
• Triable issues
• Contributory negligence
• Security for setting aside orders
• Costs

Oketch v Akida & another

Oketch v Akida & another (Civil Case E1185 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 815 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E1185 of 2024

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The Plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that KCY 450M was involved in the accident, that the 2nd Defendant negligently failed to maintain proper lookout and sufficient clearance while overtaking a stalled vehicle being pushed on the road, and that this caused the Plaintiff’s right tibial fracture and right-foot injury. No contributory negligence was established. General damages were assessed at KShs. 550,000 using comparable awards, and special damages of KShs. 12,065 were strictly proved.

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Contributory negligence
• Proof of liability
• General damages
• Special damages
• Tibial fracture

Cheva v Pan Africa Logistics Limited

Cheva v Pan Africa Logistics Limited (Environment and Land Case E298 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 811 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case E298 of 2024

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The Court found that although the Respondent proved financial difficulty, it did not prove that the Claimant’s particular role had become redundant in September 2023, nor did it show a fresh redundancy process, fresh notice, Labour Officer notice, or contemporaneous consultation proximate to the actual termination. The 2021 redundancy exercise had been overtaken by continued employment, unpaid leave, and recall to work. The termination was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair under sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act. The Claimant was awarded severance, admitted outstanding gr…

Source excerpt

• Termination of employment
• Redundancy
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive fairness
• Severance pay
• Contractual gratuity

Ogola v Otieno & another

Ogola v Otieno & another (Civil Case 122 of 2020) [2026] KEMC 779 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case 122 of 2020

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The defendants failed to file a response or attend the taxation, leaving the bill uncontested. The court therefore assessed the bill on the basis of the decretal sum of Ksh 186,000 and taxed the items as stated, including instruction fees of Ksh 40,000, resulting in a total taxed bill of Ksh 155,555.

Source excerpt

• Taxation of party-and-party bill of costs
• Assessment of instruction fees
• Failure to file response to bill of costs
• Stay of execution

Owuor (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Owuor Otieno – Deceased) v H Young & Company (EA) Ltd & 3 others

Owuor (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Owuor Otieno – Deceased) v H Young & Company (EA) Ltd & 3 others (Civil Case 592 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 821 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case 592 of 2019

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The application failed because, although there was documentary material raising questions about ownership of the prime mover and trailer, the Applicant’s own documents showed that the relevant ownership dispute and the possible involvement of Motrex Limited and Cebit Cargo Limited were known by July and August 2024, yet the Originating Summons for leave was not filed until 20 January 2026. The Applicant therefore did not satisfy the temporal and substantive conditions required by sections 27, 28 and 30 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and the court had no jurisdiction to defeat the intended…

Source excerpt

• Extension of time under sections 27, 28 and 30 of the limitation of actions act
• Statute-barred negligence claim
• Identification of proper defendant and vehicle ownership
• Leave to file amended plaint out of time
• Costs in interlocutory applications

Kenya Union of Savings and Credit Cooperative Limite v Stegro Sacco Limited

Court

Cooperative Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case E230 of 2021

Judge

["J Mwatsama", "B Sawe", "F Lotuiya", "M Chesikaw", "PO Aol"]

The Tribunal reviewed its earlier judgment, finding no inordinate delay and holding the award should be confined to the pleaded sum, with loan savings set off against the debt.

• Review of judgment
• Delay in filing review
• Pleadings and unpleaded issues
• Loan agreement enforcement
• Set-off of savings against loan
• New evidence

Kiprono v Vision Fund Kenya

Kiprono v Vision Fund Kenya (Civil Case E2041 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 818 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E2041 of 2026

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The applicant gave a satisfactory explanation for not filing the documents earlier, namely late service of the respondent's response and subsequent acquisition of the documents after making inquiries. The proposed material was relevant to the contempt application, and any prejudice to the respondent could be cured by allowing it to address the material in submissions. The court therefore exercised discretion to permit the supplementary affidavit.

Source excerpt

• Supplementary affidavit
• Leave of court
• Pleadings and disclosure
• Prejudice
• Overriding objective
• Article 159(2)(d)

Ngozi v Al-Ghaarify (Formerly Known as Khamis Khalef Ahmed) & another

Ngozi v Al-Ghaarify (Formerly Known as Khamis Khalef Ahmed) & another (Civil Case E091 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 819 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E091 of 2025

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The Preliminary Objection succeeded only partly. The Court held that the Plaintiff is bound by the Consent Arbitral Award of 19th November 2024 and by the Environment and Land Court rulings of 4th July 2025 and 23rd April 2026, so any claim seeking to reopen, contradict or circumvent those determinations is barred by res judicata and finality. However, the 1st Defendant did not show that every issue in the entire suit, especially claims involving Kenya Commercial Bank PLC and distinct motor vehicle-related obligations, was previously heard and finally decided between the same parties or privi…

Source excerpt

• Preliminary objection
• Jurisdiction
• Res judicata
• Finality of judgments
• Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards
• Abuse of process

Tsuwi & another (Suing as the Administrators and Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Tumaini Nguwa Tsuwi - Deceased) v Dhanjal Brothers Ltd alias Dhanjal Bros Ltd

Tsuwi & another (Suing as the Administrators and Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Tumaini Nguwa Tsuwi - Deceased) v Dhanjal Brothers Ltd alias Dhanjal Bros Ltd (Civil Case E735 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 782 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E735 of 2025

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The Plaintiffs proved on a balance of probabilities that the driver of KAX 393L permitted or acquiesced in the deceased’s attempt to board and moved the vehicle before he had safely boarded, thereby breaching the duty of care owed. However, the deceased also assumed an obvious risk by boarding a heavy commercial refuse lorry and failed to exercise full care for his own safety, warranting contributory negligence at 20%. The Defendant was vicariously liable as registered owner and employer/authoriser of the driver’s conduct, and the pleaded special damages were mostly proved.

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Contributory negligence
• Vicarious liability
• Volenti non fit injuria
• Quantum of damages
• Special damages

Njehia v Royal Autoworld International Limited & another

Njehia v Royal Autoworld International Limited & another (Civil Case E1154 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 816 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E1154 of 2023

Judge

["EM Mwamuye"]

The Court found that the Plaintiff did not prove fraud, forgery, or conspiracy, and the 1st Defendant only received the KShs.450,000 contractually due. However, the 2nd Defendant admitted receiving KShs.1,200,000 from the sale of the vehicle and failed to prove lawful deductions of KShs.100,000 brokerage and KShs.250,000 alleged set-off, so he was liable to account for KShs.350,000, together with interest.

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle sale and disposal
• Authority to sell property
• Fraud and forgery
• Account for sale proceeds
• Burden and standard of proof
• Damages and interest