Esheria Kenya Case Law
Sign in
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
5 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

Insolvency law [2026] KEHC 12836 (KLR)

Osiqsa EPZ Ltd v Official Receiver (as Administrator of Amor Coco Kenya (EPZ) Ltd - in Administration)

Osiqsa EPZ Ltd v Official Receiver (as Administrator of Amor Coco Kenya (EPZ) Ltd - in Administration) (Insolvency Cause E287 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12836 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Insolvency Cause E287 of 2025
Judge
["J Ngaah"]

The Applicant, as landlord and proprietor, demonstrated a superior proprietary interest, admitted unpaid occupation during administration, and significant loss from continued retention of the premises without payment. The administration was being used for asset realisation rather than rescue, so leave to forfeit and re-enter was justified subject to a 90-day suspension and an option for the Respondent either to pay monthly occupation sums as administration expenses or vacate. Leave to file and prosecute the counterclaim was also justified because the underlying dispute was already in litigati…

Source excerpt

  • Administration moratorium
  • Forfeiture and re-entry
  • Landlord proprietary rights
  • Leave to commence or continue proceedings
  • Counterclaim in subordinate court
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] SCC 212 (KLR)

Progressive Credit Ltd v Wanjala & another

Progressive Credit Ltd v Wanjala & another (Commercial Case E2841 of 2025) [2026] SCC 212 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E2841 of 2025
Judge
["ME Aligula"]

The applicants showed enough financial strain to justify instalment payment, but not enough to warrant the low instalments they proposed. The respondent's concerns about discrepancies in the financial disclosure were legitimate, yet they did not fully negate the applicants' evidence. Balancing both sides under Rule 27, the court exercised discretion to allow payment by instalments on terms that were more demanding than the applicants proposed but less onerous than the respondent demanded.

Source excerpt

  • Payment of decretal sum by instalments
  • Discretion of court on instalment orders
  • Assessment of debtor's financial means
  • Execution on default
  • Balance between decree-holder and debtor interests
Read case analysis
Employment and labour law [2026] KEELRC 2398 (KLR)

Omwenga v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agricutlrure and Technology

Omwenga v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agricutlrure and Technology (Judicial Review Application E050 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2398 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Judicial Review Application E050 of 2026
Judge
["M Mbarũ"]

The court held that the respondent had already issued a notice to show cause, received a response, and then lawfully invited the applicant to a disciplinary hearing; the applicant did not demonstrate a procedural breach severe enough to justify judicial review. The alleged leave application and Service Delivery Charter could not override the Employment Act and written approval requirements, and the court would not micro-manage a valid internal disciplinary process. The application therefore failed on the judicial review threshold.

Source excerpt

  • Disciplinary process
  • Fair administrative action
  • Abscondment/neglect of duty
  • Notice to show cause
  • Right to be heard
  • Workplace representation
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] KEELRC 2388 (KLR)

Proteq-X Security Systems Ltd v Obure (Appeal E056 of 2022)

Proteq-X Security Systems Ltd v Obure (Appeal E056 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 2388 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Appeal E056 of 2022
Judge
["M Mbarũ"]

The appeal succeeded because the respondent’s refusal to accept lawful redeployment and his subsequent absence from duty amounted to gross misconduct, defeating the unfair termination claim. The court further held that claims for underpayment, overtime, house allowance and rest days were continuing injuries filed outside the statutory limitation period and were therefore not maintainable. However, pay for days worked in August 2019 remained due because the employer produced no proof of payment and the respondent was entitled to wages for work already done.

Source excerpt

  • Unfair termination
  • Summary dismissal
  • Absconding duty
  • Underpayment
  • Overtime
  • Rest days
Read case analysis
Tax law [2026] KETAT 280 (KLR)

Jilk Construction Company Ltd v Commissioner of Legal and Board Services

Jilk Construction Company Ltd v Commissioner of Legal and Board Services (Tax Appeal E1200 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 280 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Tax Appeal Tribunal
Case number
Tax Appeal E1200 of 2025
Judge
["RM Mutuma", "G Ogaga", "T Vikiru", "JM Malla"]

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine constitutional violations under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, but it retained jurisdiction over the tax merits. The objection decision complied with section 51(10)(b) because it gave findings and reasons. On the merits, the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof under section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act and section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act; it did not produce sufficient documentary evidence to dislodge the presumed correctness of the confirmed corporation tax, VAT and PAYE assessments, so the Responden…

Source excerpt

  • Corporation tax
  • Vat
  • Paye
  • Withholding tax
  • Burden of proof
  • Objection decisions under the tax procedures act
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEELC 5291 (KLR)

Njuguna & another v Njuguna

Njuguna & another v Njuguna (Environment and Land Case E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5291 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case E001 of 2025
Judge
["JG Kemei"]

Although the Applicants had not been entirely diligent, they moved the court promptly after dismissal and the dismissal order is discretionary. Given the short delay, the interests of substantive justice, and the absence of a substantive response from the Respondent, the court exercised discretion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit; however, no costs were awarded.

Source excerpt

  • Reinstatement of suit
  • Setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution
  • Non-attendance
  • Judicial discretion
  • Delay and diligence
  • Submissions versus evidence
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEELC 5289 (KLR)

Gachuhi v Kamonjoh & 6 others

Gachuhi v Kamonjoh & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E179 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5289 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case E179 of 2021
Judge
["JG Kemei"]

The court held that the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties were not necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute. The Plaintiff failed to establish any nexus between them and the suit properties, and the evidence showed that their former title LR No. 14970/90 was distinct from LR Nos. 1490/90 and 1490/96. Their joinder was unnecessary, so their names were struck out.

Source excerpt

  • Joinder of parties
  • Interested party status
  • Striking out parties
  • Adverse possession
  • Land ownership dispute
  • Misjoinder
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12851 (KLR)

Easthall Logistics Ltd v Lasuba Logistics Ltd & 4 others

Easthall Logistics Ltd v Lasuba Logistics Ltd & 4 others (Civil Suit E077 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12851 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Suit E077 of 2023
Judge
["J Ngaah"]

The application failed because the plaintiff sought substantive reliefs against Maersk and Temesgen, including refund, lien, sale of goods and recovery of money, which are claims that can only be pursued against them as defendants, not as interested parties. Since interested-party status cannot be used to litigate a fresh cause of action or obtain coercive relief, joinder in that capacity was impermissible and the proposed amendment could not stand.

Source excerpt

  • Interested party joinder
  • Joinder of defendants
  • Amendment of plaint
  • Order 1 rule 10 civil procedure rules
  • Overriding objective
  • Fair hearing
Read case analysis
Employment and labour law [2026] KEELRC 2406 (KLR)

Masomi v Tourism Fund & 6 others

Masomi v Tourism Fund & 6 others (Petition E205 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2406 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Petition E205 of 2026
Judge
["M Mbarũ"]

The petitioner expressly brought the petition in the public interest under Articles 22 and 258, disclosed no employment, pre-employment, or prospective employment relationship with the respondents, and therefore fell outside the class of persons with standing to move the Employment and Labour Relations Court as explained by the Supreme Court in Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 others v Gikenyi & 74 others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR). The court consequently lacked jurisdiction and the petition had to be struck out.

Source excerpt

  • Standing
  • Public interest litigation
  • Preliminary objection
  • Article 22
  • Article 258
  • Article 162(2)(a) of the constitution
Read case analysis
Employment and labour law [2026] KEELRC 2391 (KLR)

Wanyonyi v G4S Ltd (Appeal E043 of 2026)

Wanyonyi v G4S Ltd (Appeal E043 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2391 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Appeal E043 of 2026
Judge
["M Mbarũ"]

The appeal failed because the evidence showed that the appellant, a security guard, was negligent in performing his duties at the client’s premises, failed to notice the theft and did not properly hand over his station. The respondent suspended him, invited him to a disciplinary hearing, and heard his representations before dismissing him. That conduct satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements of the Employment Act, and the negligence amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.

Source excerpt

  • Summary dismissal
  • Unfair termination
  • Procedural fairness
  • Substantive fairness
  • Gross misconduct
  • Disciplinary hearing
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.