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
4 court collections
Last checked

Kenya decisions

Source-linked decisions currently available to browse

Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 13072 (KLR)

Oketch & another v Maeta

Oketch & another v Maeta (Civil Miscellaneous E298 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13072 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

The Applicants failed to give a satisfactory explanation for a 95-day delay after judgment and 65 days after expiry of the statutory appeal period. They provided no evidence of diligent follow-up during the period of inaction, and the court declined to exercise discretion to enlarge time. Once leave to appeal out of time was refused, the stay prayers collapsed automatically.

  • Extension of time
  • Stay of execution
  • Inordinate delay
  • Security for due performance
  • Appellate discretion
Read case analysis
Employment law [2026] KEELRC 2385 (KLR)

Genga v Kenya Vehicle Manufacturers Ltd (Appeal E281 of 2024)

Genga v Kenya Vehicle Manufacturers Ltd (Appeal E281 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2385 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

The Appellant voluntarily signed a piece rate contract and the evidence, including payslips and the recommendation letter, showed a need-based task engagement rather than permanent employment. He did not prove a termination letter, notice, or any employer act terminating the relationship. Since the Appellant failed to establish termination or unfairness on a balance of probabilities, the trial court was correct to dismiss the claim and deny reliefs.

  • Piece rate employment
  • Termination of employment
  • Unfair termination
  • Burden of proof
  • Procedural fairness
  • Discrimination
Read case analysis
Employment and labour law [2026] KEELRC 2384 (KLR)

Ndivo v Henkel Kenya Ltd

Ndivo v Henkel Kenya Ltd (Cause E178 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 2384 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

The Court held that the respondent failed to sufficiently prove the fictitious payment and conflict-of-interest allegations, but successfully proved insubordination because the claimant knowingly ignored a direct, lawful instruction from her line manager to obtain approval before processing purchase orders related to promotion and sponsorship activities. That single proved ground justified summary dismissal under section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act. The constitutional and defamation claims were unproved. The counterclaim failed because the respondent did not strictly prove that the claiman…

  • Unfair termination
  • Summary dismissal
  • Burden of proof
  • Insubordination
  • Conflict of interest
  • Gross misconduct
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5333 (KLR)

Kibira v Machang’a & another

Kibira v Machang’a & another (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5333 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

The appellant did not prove full payment of the purchase price, yet that fact was essential to establishing a completed and enforceable sale agreement capable of specific performance. Since the evidence did not show completion of the contractual obligations, the trial court correctly refused specific performance and the appeal failed.

  • Specific performance
  • Burden of proof
  • Sale agreement completion
  • Land control board consent
  • Transfer of land
  • Estate administration
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5274 (KLR)

Nakitare v Speed Capital Limited & 4 others

Nakitare v Speed Capital Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 211 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 5274 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

The court held that the counterclaim for Kshs. 8,333,333.30 and interest was an accounting/commercial claim outside ELC jurisdiction and struck it out. On the main suit, the court found the plaintiff proved fraud: the 2nd defendant used the plaintiff's title documents to obtain the loan, the charging process was irregular and suspicious, the 2nd defendant had been criminally convicted for forgery, and the 1st defendant failed to satisfactorily rebut the fraudulent circumstances. The charge was therefore fraudulent, null and void, and had to be cancelled and removed from the register.

  • Fraudulent registration of charge
  • Validity of land title
  • Jurisdiction over accounting claims
  • Cancellation of charge
  • Permanent injunction
  • Rectification of land register
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEELC 5334 (KLR)

Thuku (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of James Wachira Muthae - Deceased) v Wachira & 8 others

Thuku (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of James Wachira Muthae - Deceased) v Wachira & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E041 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5334 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

Because the suit included multiple defendants and only the 1st, 3rd and 9th defendants were shown to have died before filing, the entire suit was not void. The correct remedy was to strike out the names of those deceased defendants rather than amend the plaint to substitute or sanitise the pleadings.

  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Suit against deceased persons
  • Joinder and striking out parties
  • Abatement/nullity of proceedings
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 467 (KLR)

Mugwika v Kuria aka David Mwangi

Mugwika v Kuria aka David Mwangi (Civil Suit E6242 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 467 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

Because the Plaintiff’s evidence on the manner of accident and injuries was uncontroverted and supported by medical documents, the Court held the Defendant 100% liable. Considering the soft tissue injuries, residual stiffness of the left index finger, and 2% permanent incapacity, the Court found Kshs. 220,000 fair and reasonable general damages, plus strictly proved special damages of Kshs. 7,100.

  • Negligence
  • Liability
  • Damages assessment
  • Special damages
  • General damages
  • Default judgment
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEMC 510 (KLR)

Republic v Makumi & another

Republic v Makumi & another (Criminal Case E500 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 510 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

The prosecution failed to prove the critical link between the accused persons and the stolen phone or funds: neither accused was found with the phone, the money was not traced to them, the search and recovery evidence was defective and inconsistent, and the complainant himself could not identify who took the items after losing consciousness. The ingredients of stealing were therefore not proved to the required standard, and the doctrine of recent possession could not apply because the stolen property was not found in the accused persons’ possession. The court acquitted both accused at the clo…

  • Stealing
  • Prima facie case
  • No case to answer
  • Recent possession
  • Search and seizure
  • Burden of proof
Read case analysis
Commercial law [2026] KEHC 12937 (KLR)

Musyimi t/a Maingi Musyimi Associates Advocates v Noorani & another

Musyimi t/a Maingi Musyimi Associates Advocates v Noorani & another (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E154 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12937 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

The court held that the taxation had produced a valid Certificate of Taxation, there was no subsisting valid Reference, no stay had been shown, and retainer was undisputed; consequently the statutory conditions for judgment under section 51(2) were met. Because service date of the bill was not proved, interest was awarded at 14% per annum from the date of the ruling.

  • Advocate-client bill of costs
  • Taxation of costs
  • Certificate of taxation
  • Section 51(2) advocates act
  • Paragraph 11 advocates remuneration order
  • Interest on advocate's fees
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 457 (KLR)

Umoja Magharibi Kenya Ltd v Wafula

Umoja Magharibi Kenya Ltd v Wafula (Commercial Case E093 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 457 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

The court compared the pleaded claim with the M-Pesa payment records and found payments totaling Kshs. 74,222 against a claim of Kshs. 65,125, meaning the claim had been fully satisfied and even overpaid. Because no counterclaim was before the court, no refund order could issue; the claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

  • Outstanding balance
  • Payment discharge
  • Excess payment
  • Absence of counterclaim
  • Costs
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.