Kenya Case Law

Wangai v Thumaita Tea Factory

Wangai v Thumaita Tea Factory (Civil Appeal E054 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12989 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E054 of 2024

Judge

["EM Muriithi"]

The High Court held that the appeal, though framed as a factual challenge, was properly entertainable as it implicated evaluation of evidence and thus a point of law. On the merits, the Respondent adduced prima facie evidence through DW1 that the Appellant’s registered bushes could not legitimately support the delivered quantities, that a system audit and physical verification revealed a major discrepancy, and that the Appellant offered no cogent rebuttal. The evidential burden shifted to the Appellant under section 109 of the Evidence Act and he failed to discharge it. The trial court theref…

Source excerpt

• Burden of proof
• Appeal on point of law
• Falsification of tea leaf records
• Bonus withholding
• Re-evaluation of evidence

Boro v Tower Sacco Society Ltd

Boro v Tower Sacco Society Ltd (Tribunal Case E020 of 2026) [2026] KECOPT 332 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Cooperative Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case E020 of 2026

Judge

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

The Tribunal found the SACCO negligently listed the Claimant at CRB after a loan repayment dispute, awarded Ksh 200,000 in damages, and costs.

• Credit reference bureau listing
• Loan default dispute
• Negligence
• Duty of good faith
• Special damages
• General damages

Awino v Institute of Quantity Surveyors of Kenya & 3 others

Awino v Institute of Quantity Surveyors of Kenya & 3 others (Petition E041 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13048 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E041 of 2026

Judge

["RE Aburili"]

The Court held that the Petitioner had locus standi, but the petition failed because it was premature and not justiciable: the Petitioner had not exhausted the statutory disciplinary mechanisms under the Architects and Quantity Surveyors framework, and the ODPP could not be compelled to investigate where that function lies with the police. As a result, no enforceable constitutional grievance had crystallized against the respondents warranting mandamus or constitutional relief.

Source excerpt

• Locus standi
• Doctrine of exhaustion
• Constitutional avoidance
• Mandamus
• Prosecutorial discretion
• Professional disciplinary proceedings

Peter (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Geoffrey Muendo Nganda) v Ngao

Peter (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Geoffrey Muendo Nganda) v Ngao (Civil Appeal E080 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13130 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Interim Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E080 of 2025

Judge

["EO Bitta"]

The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent's negligent act caused the accident. Neither PW1 nor PW2 witnessed the accident or provided factual or investigative material sufficient to establish negligence or invoke res ipsa loquitur, and the respondent's silence did not shift the legal burden. The trial court's damages assessment was within the range of comparable awards and disclosed no error of principle.

Source excerpt

• Burden and standard of proof
• Negligence
• Res ipsa loquitur
• Police evidence in accident claims
• Vicarious liability
• Quantum of damages

Laibuni v Kuria

Laibuni v Kuria (Civil Appeal E011 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13034 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E011 of 2026

Judge

["SC Chirchir"]

The application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to establish substantial loss, which is the foundational requirement for stay under Order 42 rule 6(2). The court found the application was filed without unreasonable delay, but that alone and the availability of security could not cure the absence of proof that payment of the money decree would cause irrecoverable loss or that the respondent could not refund; on the contrary, the respondent showed financial capacity to refund.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution pending appeal
• Substantial loss
• Security for due performance
• Application under order 42 rule 6
• Burden of proof in stay applications

Garissa University v Public Service Commission & another

Garissa University v Public Service Commission & another (Judicial Review E052 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2417 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Judicial Review E052 of 2026

Judge

["JW Keli"]

The Court held that although exhaustion is generally mandatory, the review remedy under section 75 of the Public Service Commission Act was not available or viable on the facts because it is confined to two narrow grounds: fresh material facts or an error apparent on the record. The Applicant showed neither ground existed, so requiring review would be futile. Because one cannot be exempted from a mechanism that is not available and viable, the Applicant was entitled to move the Court directly by judicial review. The preliminary objection therefore failed.

Source excerpt

• Doctrine of exhaustion
• Review vs judicial review
• Jurisdiction
• Preliminary objection
• Fair administrative action act
• Public service commission disciplinary appeals

Gitanyu v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others

Gitanyu v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E239 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12988 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E239 of 2024

Judge

["LN Mugambi"]

The petition failed because it was imprecise, unsupported by particularized evidence, and did not demonstrate any unlawful, unreasonable, oppressive, or bad-faith conduct by the respondents. The investigative narrative disclosed a rational basis for inquiry, and the petitioner’s rent explanation raised factual disputes for the criminal trial, not a constitutional court. The court therefore declined to restrain investigation or prosecution.

Source excerpt

• Threshold for constitutional petitions
• Abuse of prosecutorial discretion
• Police investigations
• Arrest and prosecution restraint
• Right to fair administrative action
• Rule of law

Siocha v Hashimweyezu (Legal Representative of the Estate of John Mbumba (Deceased)

Siocha v Hashimweyezu (Legal Representative of the Estate of John Mbumba (Deceased) (Civil Appeal E195 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13090 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E195 of 2025

Judge

["EO Bitta"]

The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to prove negligence and failed to prove causation between the accident and the deceased’s death. The trial court also erred in awarding dependency damages to the deceased’s brother, who is not a dependant under section 4(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act. The High Court therefore set aside the subordinate court judgment and dismissed the suit.

Source excerpt

• Negligence and liability
• Causation
• Res ipsa loquitur
• Dependency under the fatal accidents act
• Assessment of damages
• Appellate interference with damages

Boro v Tower Sacco Society Ltd

Boro v Tower Sacco Society Ltd (Tribunal Case E20 of 2026) [2026] KECOPT 329 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Cooperative Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case E20 of 2026

Judge

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

The Cooperative Tribunal dismissed a preliminary objection, holding it had jurisdiction over a member–sacco dispute and that the exhaustion argument was fact-dependent.

• Jurisdiction of the co-operative tribunal
• Preliminary objection
• Doctrine of exhaustion
• Crb listing dispute
• Defamation and damages
• Business of a cooperative society

Namayi v Public Service Commission & 3 others

Namayi v Public Service Commission & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E217 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2425 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E217 of 2025

Judge

["JW Keli"]

The court held that the petitioner knew he had been directed to resume duty, nonetheless accepted and continued under an independent county contract without the employer’s approval, and therefore deserted his employment. Because he was given a disciplinary process and the court found no procedural defect, the dismissal was lawful and the constitutional challenge failed. The court rejected claims for reinstatement, damages, and salary arrears, but affirmed entitlement to earned pension, subject to exclusion of the period spent unlawfully under the county contract.

Source excerpt

• Desertion of duty
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive fairness
• Secondment versus deployment
• Dismissal from public service
• Pension entitlement