Kilinga v Republic
Kilinga v Republic (Criminal Revision E222 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13068 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 13068 (KLR)
Source excerpt
- Revision
- High court criminal supervision
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Kenya Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 4 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Kenya case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
Ochieng & another v Managing Director, Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others
Ochieng & another v Managing Director, Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5328 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Applicants satisfied the requirements for mandamus because they held a valid, unsatisfied decree, had obtained and served the requisite Certificate of Order against the Government, and the public officers responsible for payment had failed to discharge their statutory duty. The 1st Respondent’s excuses failed: budgetary allocation was not a legal defence, the conditional stay had lapsed when the required deposit was not made, and apportionment could not be imposed in judicial review on a joint and several decree. Mandamus therefore issued against all Respondents for full payment.
Source excerpt
- Mandamus
- Enforcement of decree against government
- Certificate of order against government
- Court orders and stay of execution
- Budgetary allocation as defence to decree enforcement
- Joint and several liability
Juma v Kyoga Hauliers Kenya Limited
Juma v Kyoga Hauliers Kenya Limited (Civil Suit E023 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 678 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The defendant’s default left the plaintiff’s evidence unchallenged, and the court accepted that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the defendant’s vehicle, making the defendant vicariously liable. The plaintiff proved the pleaded injuries through the medical report and police abstract. Guided by comparable cases, the court found Kshs. 800,000 fair general damages, Kshs. 300,000 reasonable for diminished earning capacity, Kshs. 30,000 justified for future medical expenses, and Kshs. 5,050 proved as special damages.
Source excerpt
- Negligence
- Vicarious liability
- Default judgment/interlocutory judgment
- General damages
- Special damages
- Future medical expenses
Moyale Mall Limited & 2 others v Ali & 18 others
Moyale Mall Limited & 2 others v Ali & 18 others (Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5336 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held it was functus officio as to merits but retained limited power to correct the record and make orders necessary to give practical effect to the judgment. It allowed correction of the cause title and lease count under section 99, clarified the scope of the remittal, declined to adjudicate the separate Tribunal ruling of 10 June 2026, declined to pronounce on the Tribunal’s competence in that separate matter, and granted limited consequential relief restoring positions after the impugned interim orders were set aside. It also ordered the remitted references to be heard by a differ…
Source excerpt
- Functus officio
- Slip rule and correction of record
- Residual jurisdiction
- Consequential and transitional orders
- Controlled tenancy under cap. 301
- Tribunal jurisdiction pending appeal
Wambua v Commissioner of Legal Services & Board Coordination
Wambua v Commissioner of Legal Services & Board Coordination (Tax Appeal E261 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 320 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal was struck out because the Appellant failed to place the appealable decision referred to in the Notice of Appeal on record, contrary to the mandatory requirements of section 13 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. That procedural defect rendered the appeal incompetent, making the substantive grievance over amendment of the 2018 self-assessment moot.
Source excerpt
- Validity of appeal
- Appealable decision
- Self-assessment amendment
- Objection decision
- Striking out incompetent appeal
Simiyu v Kenya Sugar Board & 15 others
Simiyu v Kenya Sugar Board & 15 others (Constitutional Petition E008 & E004 of 2026 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 13051 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that its 24 June 2026 declaration maintaining the status quo in relation to implementation of the First Schedule to the Sugar Act 2024 was intended to freeze any activity, including elections under that schedule, until the petition is heard and determined. It therefore clarified that the impending growers' representatives elections could not lawfully proceed on the basis of the impugned schedule, and it issued structured directions to expedite filing, rejoinder, submissions, and hearing.
Source excerpt
- Status quo order
- Conservatory relief
- Interpretation and clarification of court orders
- Sugar act 2024 first schedule
- Election of growers' representatives
- Public participation
Muteti v Republic
Muteti v Republic (Criminal Revision E015 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13066 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 13066 (KLR)
Source excerpt
- Criminal revision
- Revisionary jurisdiction
- Sentencing review
TMN v Republic
TMN v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E047 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13025 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 13025 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Read case analysisMbinya v Kiptoo p/a Kitoo & Associates Advocates & another
Mbinya v Kiptoo p/a Kitoo & Associates Advocates & another (Commercial Suit E001 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13018 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The preliminary objection failed because the Civil Procedure Rules expressly authorize the High Court, on Originating Summons, to compel an advocate to deliver accounts and client money where an advocate-client relationship exists, and the Advocates Act itself does not require the client to first exhaust the Commission process; section 6B confirms that the Commission is not the first port of call where a civil suit has been filed over the same funds. The Applicant therefore had locus standi, and the court had jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
- Preliminary objection
- Jurisdiction
- Locus standi
- Advocate-client relationship
- Delivery of accounts and client funds
- Originating summons
Juma v Republic
Juma v Republic (Criminal Revision E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13043 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court held that revision was not available as a substitute for appeal, but the applicant was entitled to relief on the narrower ground that the trial court failed to take into account the period spent in remand custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the trial court also failed to clarify whether the convictions related to all counts and whether the sentences were concurrent or consecutive, the High Court treated the sentences as concurrent and directed that the prison authorities credit the applicant with 5 months and 18 days spent in custody.
Source excerpt
- Revision jurisdiction
- Section 333(2) credit for time spent in custody
- Concurrent vs consecutive sentences
- Guilty plea sentencing
- Bail jump and re-arrest
Explore more