Kenya Case Law

Makomboki Tea Factory Limited v Mwaura (Appeal E074 of 2025)

Makomboki Tea Factory Limited v Mwaura (Appeal E074 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2394 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Appeal E074 of 2025

Judge

["NJ Abuodha"]

The appeal failed because the Appellant did not validly challenge the DOSH award within the statutory framework, and its purported second medical examination was undertaken without DOSH approval. The court found the Appellant’s reliance on non-service unpersuasive in light of its conduct, including scheduling a second medical assessment and responding to the demand letter, which showed knowledge of the award. The court upheld adoption of the award, but reduced the amount by the sum already paid.

Source excerpt

• Work injury benefits act
• Director of occupational safety and health services award
• Service of administrative decision
• Objection and appeal timelines under sections 51 and 52
• Second medical examination under section 25
• Judicial review and remission

Afro Drip Limited v Racharky Construction Limited & another

Afro Drip Limited v Racharky Construction Limited & another (Commercial Appeal E007 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12977 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Appeal E007 of 2025

Judge

["MN Mwangi"]

The appeal succeeded because the magistrate wrongly set aside a regular interlocutory judgment while a valid consent order, adopted by the court and never sought to be set aside, remained binding; the respondents did not credibly disprove service, did not file a draft defence, and advanced no lawful basis to disturb the consent or the judgment.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside interlocutory judgment
• Consent judgment/order
• Regular versus irregular judgment
• Service of summons
• Functus officio
• Exercise of judicial discretion

Mutwiwa v Trinity Kindergarten Preparatory School (Appeal E213 of 2025)

Mutwiwa v Trinity Kindergarten Preparatory School (Appeal E213 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2382 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Appeal E213 of 2025

Judge

["NJ Abuodha"]

The appellate court found that the Respondent failed to prove the alleged competing school, failed to justify the termination reason, and failed to comply with the mandatory disciplinary hearing requirements under section 41 of the Employment Act. The dismissal was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair, and the Appellant was entitled to compensation and related employment dues.

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Summary dismissal
• Procedural fairness
• Substantive fairness
• Burden of proof
• Compensation for unfair termination

Murage v Murage & another

Murage v Murage & another (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5331 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case E020 of 2025

Judge

["EK Makori"]

The suit concerned distribution of a deceased person's estate and the Plaintiff's difficulty arose from the manner in which the grant was confirmed in favour of the 1st Defendant. That is a succession issue, not an ELC dispute. Because the proper remedy was to seek revocation or challenge of the confirmed grant in succession proceedings, the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction and could not grant the orders sought.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of the environment and land court
• Administration and distribution of a deceased estate
• Confirmation and revocation of grant
• Overriding interests
• Fraudulent transfer of registered land

Gichuki (Suing as on of the administrators of Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Mwananchi Credit Ltd

Gichuki (Suing as on of the administrators of Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Mwananchi Credit Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E193 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5270 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E193 of 2025

Judge

["CG Mbogo"]

The application failed because the applicant did not seek any prayer to set aside or vary the consent order dated 27 October 2025, yet the relief sought, especially instalment payment and stay, would contradict that consent. Without attacking the consent directly, the court could not properly entertain the motion or grant the requested orders.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution
• Consent orders
• Payment of costs from estate
• Execution of costs decree
• Instalment payments
• Representative capacity litigation

In re Estate of Obel (Deceased)

In re Estate of Obel (Deceased) (Succession Cause 305 of 2011) [2026] KEHC 13071 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Succession Cause 305 of 2011

Judge

["PN Gichohi"]

The summons itself was procedurally defective because it was anchored against a deceased administrator and her beneficiaries had no letters of administration, so they lacked locus standi to defend or prosecute the application. However, the court exercised its own succession jurisdiction under section 76, section 47 and rule 73 to intervene suo motu: the original grant was tainted by concealment of a whole house and defective distribution in a polygamous estate, making the grant useless, inoperative, and liable to revocation.

Source excerpt

• Revocation of grant
• Locus standi
• Deceased person as respondent
• Polygamous estate distribution
• Concealment of beneficiaries
• Section 76 law of succession act

Gichuki (Suing as one of the administrators of the Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Gichuki & 4 others (Land Case E250 of 2024)

Gichuki (Suing as one of the administrators of the Estate of Jairus Gichuki Peter) v Gichuki & 4 others (Land Case E250 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5268 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Land Case E250 of 2024

Judge

["CG Mbogo"]

The court refused stay of execution because the costs decree was independent of the later suit and mere apprehension of execution did not amount to sufficient cause. The court also declined to order satisfaction from the estate because the succession position and estate assets were not before it. However, it exercised discretion to allow partial satisfaction by instalments, but only after requiring an upfront lump-sum payment as a fair condition to protect the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution
• Costs enforcement
• Estate liability for costs
• Payment by instalments
• Legal representatives
• Decretal amount enforcement

Musyimi t/a Maingi Musyimi Associates Advocates v Jack & Jill Supermarket Ltd

Musyimi t/a Maingi Musyimi Associates Advocates v Jack & Jill Supermarket Ltd (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E152 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12938 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Miscellaneous Application E152 of 2024

Judge

["MN Mwangi"]

The court held that the statutory conditions for entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the Advocates Act were satisfied because the advocate had been retained, the bill of costs had been taxed, a certificate of taxation existed, no valid reference or stay was pending, and the client’s intended appeal did not suspend the certificate. Judgment was therefore entered for the taxed sum, with interest awarded at 14% per annum from the date of the ruling because the date of service of the bill was not proved.

Source excerpt

• Taxation of advocate-client bill of costs
• Certificate of taxation
• Entry of judgment under section 51(2) of the advocates act
• Interest on advocates’ costs
• Challenge to taxation under paragraph 11 of the advocates remuneration order

Adoyo v Midianga & 3 others

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E054 of 2025

Judge

["FO Nyagaka"]

The court held that Gordon Otieno Adoyo proved adverse possession over about three acres of parcel KANYAMWA/KABONYO KWANDIKO/2139 and granted registration and injunction relief.

• Adverse possession
• Limitation of actions
• Subdivision and registration of land
• Injunctions
• Costs
• Adverse-possession

Mombasa Cement Ltd v Kenindia Assurance Company Ltd

Mombasa Cement Ltd v Kenindia Assurance Company Ltd (Commercial Case 283 of 2014) [2026] KEHC 12926 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case 283 of 2014

Judge

["MN Mwangi"]

The court held that the blending silo formed part of the insured property because it was expressly identified in the machinery schedule and the defendant accepted the risk and premiums without qualification after receiving that schedule. The defendant failed to prove material non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and the evidence showed the collapse was caused by insured perils—faulty design, defective materials, bad workmanship and erection faults—rather than excluded causes. On valuation, the plaintiff’s Toplis & Harding assessment was preferred, underinsurance was not proved with sufficient…

Source excerpt

• Policy interpretation
• Utmost good faith and disclosure
• Insurance coverage of industrial plant
• Exclusion clauses
• Causation and insured perils
• Business interruption / loss of profits