Kenya Case Law

Mbilo v Republic

Mbilo v Republic (Criminal Revision E025 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13021 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E025 of 2026

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The court held that the original release terms, though not unreasonable, warranted review because the matter had stalled for an extended period due to missing files, the prosecution did not oppose the application, and justice required balancing the applicant’s compromised liberty against the need to secure future attendance. The bond conditions were therefore relaxed to one surety instead of two.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Appeal out of time
• Retrial
• Missing court file
• Bail/bond terms
• Review of release conditions

Mbago & another v Republic

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision Application E016 of 2026

Judge

["SM Mohochi"]

The High Court revised and set aside a ten-day detention order, holding that ongoing investigations and a pending ballistic report did not amount to compelling reasons.

• Revision jurisdiction
• Continued detention/remand pending investigations
• Right to liberty
• Compelling reasons for detention
• Pre-charge detention
• Exercise of judicial discretion

Mutuku v Republic

Mutuku v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13024 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E048 of 2025

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The High Court held that although revision is generally barred where an appeal lies, the record showed the trial court failed to credit the applicant with the period spent in remand custody as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application therefore succeeded to the extent that the remand period had to be considered in computing the sentence.

Source excerpt

• Revision jurisdiction
• Section 333(2) cpc remand period credit
• Jurisdiction where appeal lies
• Discretionary interference with sentence
• Grievous harm

Pilot Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Momanyi t/a Soceno Pharmacy

Pilot Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Momanyi t/a Soceno Pharmacy (Commercial Case E779 of 2025) [2026] SCC 225 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E779 of 2025

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it supplied goods to the respondent, that the respondent was the person liable for Soceno Chemist, or that the disputed payment documents were executed by him or by an authorised agent. The absence of invoices, delivery notes, proof of authority, and credible identity linkage left the claim unproven.

Source excerpt

• Debt recovery
• Proof of supply of goods
• Burden and standard of proof
• Disputed signature and document authenticity
• Corporate execution/authority
• Accounting records as evidence

Kivandi v Republic

Kivandi v Republic (Criminal Revision E017 of 2026)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E017 of 2026

Judge

["SM Mohochi"]

The High Court revised an illegal traffic sentence, reducing a Kshs.500,000 fine to Kshs.50,000 while leaving the guilty plea conviction intact.

• Illegal sentence beyond statutory maximum
• Motor vehicle exceeding prescribed dimensions
• High court revision under sections 362 and 364 criminal procedure code
• Default sentence in lieu of fine
• Plea of guilty conviction undisturbed
• Criminal-revision

Owuor & another v Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs & 4 others

Owuor & another v Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs & 4 others (Judicial Review E251 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13039 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E251 of 2026

Judge

["WM Musyoka"]

The court held that the application had merit because the licensing fee component could not be severed from the processing of licence applications under the new regime, and staying the regulations entirely would create a regulatory vacuum and leave the gaming sector without effective governance and oversight. Public interest therefore favoured allowing implementation of the regulations while preserving the applicants’ complaint through the pending substantive motion and the refund undertaking.

Source excerpt

• Stay orders
• Variation of orders
• Licensing regulations
• Regulatory fees
• Public interest balancing
• Preservation of substratum

Cedar Marketing and Communications Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Cedar Marketing and Communications Ltd v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E1213 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 319 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Tax Appeal Tribunal

Case number

Tax Appeal E1213 of 2025

Judge

["E Komolo", "AM Diriye", "Cynthia B. Mayaka"]

The appeal was filed on 29 October 2025 against an objection decision dated 22 October 2022, far outside the 30-day statutory period, and the Appellant did not seek leave to extend time. That failure deprived the Tribunal of jurisdiction, so the appeal was incompetent and had to be struck out without reaching the merits of the VAT assessment.

Source excerpt

• Timeliness of appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Vat input tax documentation
• Additional tax assessment
• Objection decision
• Burden of proof

Super Metro Ltd v County Government of Nairobi & another

Super Metro Ltd v County Government of Nairobi & another (Judicial Review E160 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13069 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E160 of 2026

Judge

["WM Musyoka"]

The court held that the applicant had an existing authority to access the terminus, had paid the requisite fees, and was blocked without prior notice, reasons, or an opportunity to be heard. The respondents filed no response to controvert those facts. The impugned action was therefore procedurally unfair, irrational, and unreasonable, violating natural justice and the Fair Administrative Action Act, so judicial review reliefs were warranted.

Source excerpt

• Fair administrative action
• Natural justice
• Procedural fairness
• Unopposed application
• Revocation of permit
• Public transport regulation

Chepkwony v Cheluget

Chepkwony v Cheluget (Commercial Case E638 of 2026) [2026] SCC 227 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E638 of 2026

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The court declined to strike out the claim because, on the face of the statement of claim, the claimant pleaded a specific transaction, specific representations, and fraud/misrepresentation allegations that disclose a triable cause of action. The alleged illegality could not be conclusively determined without evidence, so the matter had to proceed to trial.

Source excerpt

• Striking out pleadings
• Reasonable cause of action
• Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
• Illegal contracts
• Employment recruitment fees
• Fraud and misrepresentation

Ntheiwa alias Kasuma v Republic

Ntheiwa alias Kasuma v Republic (Criminal Revision E012 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13065 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Revision E012 of 2026

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

[2026] KEHC 13065 (KLR)

Source excerpt

• Criminal revision
• Revision jurisdiction
• Procedural posture