Kenya Case Law

Murango v Ng’ongo & 8 others

Murango v Ng’ongo & 8 others (Constitutional Petition E015 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13002 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E015 of 2026

Judge

["EM Muriithi"]

The application for recusal failed because the respondents did not prove actual bias or facts giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The allegedly biased conduct was explained by the record: the court heard the parties, maintained status quo pending further hearing, and merely proposed to consider certification under Article 165(4) after submissions. Those acts were judicial management steps, not evidence of partiality.

Source excerpt

• Judicial bias
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Duty to sit
• Certification of substantial question of law
• Article 165(4) empanelment
• Conservatory orders

Omuhaka v Muraguri

Omuhaka v Muraguri (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E314 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2420 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E314 of 2025

Judge

["JW Keli"]

The appeal succeeded because the proposed amendments did not introduce a wholly new dispute; they only particularized claims already pleaded in the original statement of claim, and allowing them caused no prejudice that could not be cured by response. The trial court therefore erred in treating the application as time-barred and in refusing leave to amend, so the ruling was set aside and substituted with an order granting the amendment.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Computation of limitation time
• Add/substitute causes of action
• Joinder of necessary party
• Whether limitation can bar amendment and joinder
• Exercise of judicial discretion

Moses Omboga Osiemo v Latema Sacco, Jephys Auctioneers, Victor Chweya Nyambane, Abedinego Okenye Ongata and Lydia Kerubo Omwenga

Court

Cooperative Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case E349 of 2022

Judge

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

The Tribunal dismissed objections to attachment and sale of two motor vehicles, holding it lacked jurisdiction over KDN 041C and that ownership of KDD188J was not proved.

• Jurisdiction of the cooperative tribunal
• Objector proceedings
• Stay of execution
• Attachment and sale in execution
• Ownership versus possession of motor vehicles
• Burden of proof

Ngeywa v Teachers Service Commission

Ngeywa v Teachers Service Commission (Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2434 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024

Judge

["JW Keli"]

The court held that the limitation objection failed because the petitioner had pursued the internal review process and the cause of action accrued when the review decision was communicated on 9 September 2022, not on the earlier dismissal date. However, on the merits, the dispute was fundamentally an employment and disciplinary matter governed by the Employment Act and the Teachers Service Commission regulations, not a standalone constitutional violation. The court found the petitioner was given adequate notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to defend himself, and that he admitted absence wit…

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Desertion of duty
• Fair hearing
• Fair administrative action
• Preliminary objection on limitation
• Reinstatement

Nyabuto v Kenya Academy of Sports & another

Nyabuto v Kenya Academy of Sports & another (Constitutional Petition E416 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13007 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E416 of 2025

Judge

["LN Mugambi"]

The court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient public participation in formulating the criteria for identifying and locating the sports academies, because consultation was limited to official stakeholders and did not show meaningful involvement of the general public; however, the court found no proof that the petitioner’s right of access to information was violated and no proof that the procurement process itself breached Article 227 or the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. The court declined to invalidate existing academies and instead ordered the respondents t…

Source excerpt

• Public participation
• Equality and non-discrimination
• Transparency and accountability
• Sports academies procurement
• Access to information requests
• Judicial review remedies

Nkunja v B.M Security Sacco

Nkunja v B.M Security Sacco (Tribunal Case E257 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 324 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Cooperative Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case E257 of 2024

Judge

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

The Claimant proved accumulated refundable contributions of Kshs. 228,100 through his statement of account, while the Respondent filed no supporting evidence to establish any loans, guarantor obligations, or other liabilities. The alleged Kshs. 1,000 share capital was non-refundable and excluded from the refundable amount. Accordingly, the Claimant was entitled to refund of Kshs. 228,100 plus costs and interest.

Source excerpt

• Member withdrawal refund
• Share capital non-refundable
• Dividends claim
• Proof of liability
• Costs and interest

Republic v SO (Sexual Offence E020 of 2025)

Republic v SO (Sexual Offence E020 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 532 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Sexual Offence E020 of 2025

Judge

["AZ Ogange"]

[2026] KEMC 532 (KLR)

Source excerpt

• Judgment
• Prosecution

Okello v Republic

Okello v Republic (Criminal Appeal E104 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 13056 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E104 of 2023

Judge

["RN Nyakundi"]

The court held that the appellant’s pre-trial custody had already been taken into account by the trial court, so the complaint under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was moot. However, the court accepted that the offences arose from a single transaction and that consecutive sentences were not justified. It therefore reviewed the sentence under Sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and substituted consecutive imprisonment terms with concurrent terms.

Source excerpt

• Section 333(2) cpc credit for time spent in custody
• Concurrent versus consecutive sentences
• Single transaction rule
• Forgery and uttering
• Review of sentence

Amwayi & 64 Ex Employees of Rolmil Kenya Ltd v Kenya Engineering Workers Union & another

Amwayi & 64 Ex Employees of Rolmil Kenya Ltd v Kenya Engineering Workers Union & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E176 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2416 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Cause E176 of 2025

Judge

["JW Keli"]

The court held that the petition is not res judicata because it raises a different question from the underlying ELRC Cause No. 41 of 2006: alleged breach of the union’s duty of fair representation in the post-judgment execution phase. That issue was not directly and substantially determined in the former proceedings. The court also held that it was not functus officio because it was being asked to determine a distinct post-judgment labour-rights dispute, not to reopen or vary the earlier judgment. The preliminary objection therefore failed.

Source excerpt

• Duty of fair representation
• Res judicata
• Functus officio
• Preliminary objection
• Execution of judgment
• Abuse of court process

DA v ANW (Children's Case E022 of 2026)

DA v ANW (Children's Case E022 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 663 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Children's Case E022 of 2026

Judge

["TO Omono"]

Although the application cited repealed provisions and was technically defective, the court declined to strike it out because this was a children’s matter and the best interests of the minors required a substantive determination. On maintenance, the parties had comparable monthly income and therefore had to contribute equally to upkeep and school-related expenses. On custody, exceptional circumstances and the children’s expressed wishes justified preserving the status quo on physical custody, while granting both parents interim legal custody.

Source excerpt

• Interim child maintenance
• Custody and legal custody
• Best interests of the child
• Status quo in custody
• Parental responsibility
• School fees and educational expenses