Kenya Case Law

Odhiambo v Mwathama & another

Odhiambo v Mwathama & another (Commercial Case E4745 of 2025) [2026] SCC 229 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E4745 of 2025

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The Objector proved ownership only of those specific movable items for which she produced credible documentary evidence linking her to their acquisition, but failed to prove ownership of the remaining attached goods. The land parcel was not shown to have been attached in the execution proceedings, so no order could issue concerning its attachment; execution remains available only against property belonging to the judgment debtor.

Source excerpt

• Objection to attachment
• Burden of proof in objection proceedings
• Ownership of attached goods
• Release from attachment
• Execution against third-party property

Aput (Suing as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of Johnson Ochieng Akuno - Deceased) v Ogira & another

Aput (Suing as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of Johnson Ochieng Akuno - Deceased) v Ogira & another (Environment and Land Appeal E031 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5323 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Appeal E031 of 2025

Judge

["EK Wabwoto"]

The appellate court held that although the specific allegation of forgery was not strictly proved, the uncontroverted documentary evidence showed that land parcel Kisumu/Kadongo/5635 was transferred and registered in the 1st Respondent's name after the registered owner had died and before any grant of representation existed. That made the transfer illegal, unprocedural, and void ab initio under the Law of Succession Act and section 26(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act. The trial court erred by treating the case as forgery-only and by placing on the Appellant the burden of producing registry…

Source excerpt

• Fraud and illegality in land transfer
• Intermeddling with a deceased person's estate
• Proof standard in civil fraud claims
• Burden of proof and adverse inference
• Rectification and cancellation of land register
• Costs on appeal

Wako v Hassan

Wako v Hassan (Civil Appeal E014 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13033 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E014 of 2026

Judge

["SC Chirchir"]

The Applicant met the requirements for only a limited and conditional stay. The court found that the custody order required preservation of the children’s current living arrangement pending appeal to avoid destabilising them, that the maintenance order did not amount to substantial loss because it was a continuing welfare obligation, and that the disputed structures and any compensation should be preserved by restraining dealings and ring-fencing compensation. The Applicant was however allowed to continue receiving rent for the children’s upkeep pending appeal.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution pending appeal
• Custody and care of children
• Parental responsibility
• Maintenance/child support
• Property and compensation for disputed structures
• Access and visitation rights

Makovo v Maitha & 2 others

Makovo v Maitha & 2 others (Civil Appeal E089 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13045 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E089 of 2025

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondents’ tractor was involved in the alleged accident or that the 1st respondent was the driver. The police abstract, produced nineteen months after the alleged accident and unsupported by the investigating officer or other independent evidence, was insufficient to establish liability. The defense evidence materially contradicted the appellant on the time and circumstances of the accident, undermining credibility. Consequently, the dismissal of the suit was upheld. The trial court’s indicative ass…

Source excerpt

• Burden and standard of proof
• Probative value of police abstract
• Vicarious liability
• Credibility of eyewitness and documentary evidence
• Appellate interference with trial court findings
• Assessment of general damages

JMN v Republic

JMN v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E068 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13038 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E068 of 2024

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

[2026] KEHC 13038 (KLR)

Source excerpt

• Miscellaneous criminal application

Mbugua v Mugada

Mbugua v Mugada (Commercial Case E4756 of 2025) [2026] SCC 226 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E4756 of 2025

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The applicant did not demonstrate any statutory ground for review. His complaints about ownership of the motor vehicle, the effect of registration, the alleged payment of Kshs.500,000, and the concepts of detinue and conversion all required re-evaluation of evidence and therefore could not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The proper remedy, if he believed the court erred in law or fact, was appeal, not review. Because the review failed, there was no basis for stay of execution or for setting aside and substituting the judgment.

Source excerpt

• Review of judgment
• Stay of execution
• Error apparent on the face of the record
• Ownership of motor vehicle
• Registration as prima facie evidence of ownership
• Warranty/passsing of property in goods

Gathungu v Iwaki Trading Limited

Gathungu v Iwaki Trading Limited (Civil Case E1512 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 535 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E1512 of 2026

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The court taxed the bill by applying the relevant scale to a judgment sum of Ksh 950,000/-, which placed the matter within the Ksh 500,000 to 1,000,000 band and justified instruction fees of Ksh 90,000/-. The unopposed bill was then assessed item by item, resulting in a total taxed amount of Ksh 116,200/-.

Source excerpt

• Taxation of party-and-party costs
• Assessment of instruction fees
• Unopposed bill of costs
• Stay of execution

Wiocc Services Kenya Ltd v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Co-ordination

Wiocc Services Kenya Ltd v Commissioner of Legal Services and Board Co-ordination (Tax Appeal E264 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 322 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Tax Appeal Tribunal

Case number

Tax Appeal E264 of 2026

Judge

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

The Tribunal held that the Appellant was not an agent of WIOCC Mauritius because the Management Service Agreement expressly provided that it acted as an independent contractor and did not create a principal-agent relationship. Since the Appellant incurred costs in its own name and the Respondent had previously allowed some input VAT, the Respondent was not justified in denying the refund claims on agency grounds. The Tribunal further held that the 2021 refund claim was not time-barred because it had first been lodged within the statutory period and the later rejection resulted from the Respon…

Source excerpt

• Vat refund claims
• Input tax deductions
• Agency relationship
• Principal-agent relationship
• Exported services
• Time-barred refund applications

Wanjala v Republic

Wanjala v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E009 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13023 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E009 of 2026

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

[2026] KEHC 13023 (KLR)

Source excerpt

Maithi v Republic

Maithi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E064 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13037 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Criminal Application E064 of 2024

Judge

["JN Onyiego"]

The application for revision failed because the sentence was lawful, the applicant was effectively asking the court to exercise mercy rather than correct illegality or impropriety, section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code bars revision where an appeal lies, and the offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years, leaving the court with no discretion to impose probation or a lesser term.

Source excerpt

• Revision jurisdiction
• Minimum sentences
• Probation as sentence substitution
• Forfeiture
• Wildlife meat possession offence