Kenya Case Law

Munga v Owuor & 3 others

Munga v Owuor & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E074 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2378 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E074 of 2026

Judge

["K Ocharo"]

The recusal bid failed because the Judge’s off-record comments were proper active case-management observations on jurisdiction, res judicata and procedural form, not evidence of bias or prejudgment. The Chamber Summons failed because it was, in substance, a disguised review application against the judgment in Petition No. E009 of 2026, wrongly filed as a freestanding miscellaneous matter, raised contentious issues unsuitable for summary determination, was barred by res judicata through the Court’s earlier rulings of 20th July 2026 and 31st July 2026, and amounted to an abuse of the court proc…

Source excerpt

• Recusal test
• Active case management
• Res judicata
• Abuse of process
• Review of judgment
• Miscellaneous application versus substantive suit

In re Estate of Gikonyo alias Duncan Munge s/o Gikonyo (Deceased)

In re Estate of Gikonyo alias Duncan Munge s/o Gikonyo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 789 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12803 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Succession Cause 789 of 2023

Judge

["MA Odero"]

The protestor failed to prove any ground under section 76 of the Law of Succession Act. The court found she had participated in the succession process, signed the consent to confirmation, and offered no credible proof of forgery or fraud. The claim that LR Laikipia/Uaso-Narok/707 had been given away as dowry was unsupported and contradicted by the land records showing it remained in the deceased’s name. The revocation summons was therefore a mere afterthought and lacked merit.

Source excerpt

• Revocation of grant
• Alleged non-disclosure of beneficiary
• Forgery/fraud allegation
• Consent to confirmation of grant
• Distribution of intestate estate
• Burden and standard of proof

Waiharo v MW (A minor through her next kin and friend MWG)

Waiharo v MW (A minor through her next kin and friend MWG) (Civil Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12797 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application E016 of 2026

Judge

["MA Odero"]

[2026] KEHC 12797 (KLR)

Source excerpt

Murandi v Julius & another

Murandi v Julius & another (Civil Case E077 of 2025) [2026] SCC 207 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Civil Case E077 of 2025

Judge

["T Wachira"]

The application failed because, although the judgment was regular and the court acknowledged the discretion ordinarily available to set it aside, the Small Claims Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the orders sought in light of the jurisdictional position arising from the Chief Justice’s Gazette notice and the need for transfer, a power vested in the High Court; the application was therefore unmerited.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside ex parte/default judgment
• Temporary stay of execution
• Regular service
• Jurisdiction over personal injury claims
• Transfer of matters
• Costs

Koech v Republic

Koech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E063 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 13077 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E063 of 2022

Judge

["PN Gichohi"]

The appeal failed because the evidence established all elements of robbery with violence through armed group attack and actual violence, and the complainant's and other witnesses' evidence showed reliable recognition of the appellant by appearance, clothing, dreadlocks, voice and the circumstances of the attack. The rape charge was also proved by the victim's direct testimony and surrounding evidence despite the medical and identification objections. The omission of some witnesses and the investigating officer did not weaken the case, the defence was considered and rejected as a denial, and t…

Source excerpt

• Robbery with violence
• Rape
• Identification evidence
• Voice identification
• Corroboration
• Failure to call witnesses

Okitoi & another v Kinyua & another (Jointly as Administrators of the Estate of Brian Saisi Abung’ana - Deceased)

Okitoi & another v Kinyua & another (Jointly as Administrators of the Estate of Brian Saisi Abung’ana - Deceased) (Civil Appeal E057 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12827 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E057 of 2025

Judge

["MA Odero"]

The appeal succeeded only in part. The deceased, although the stationary vehicle occupant, failed to take reasonable precautions to warn oncoming traffic at night, so the 85:15 apportionment was incorrect and liability was reallocated at 70:30 against the Appellants. The awards for pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life, loss of dependency, and special damages were not shown to be erroneous or excessive, so they were upheld, subject only to the revised liability ratio.

Source excerpt

• Liability apportionment
• Negligence
• Locus standi
• Fatal accidents act
• Law reform act
• Special damages

Machira v Republic

Machira v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13070 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2024

Judge

["PN Gichohi"]

The application failed because the applicant's conviction and life sentence had already been confirmed through the High Court and Court of Appeal; therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to review or alter the Court of Appeal's final decision, and Section 333(2) CPC could not be invoked to disturb that finality.

Source excerpt

• Defilement sentencing under the sexual offences act
• Mandatory minimum sentence challenge
• Sentence re-hearing
• Section 333(2) cpc
• Jurisdiction of the high court vis-à-vis court of appeal
• Res judicata and abuse of process

Omusindi t/a Morgan Omusindi Law Firm Advocates v Walusuna

Omusindi t/a Morgan Omusindi Law Firm Advocates v Walusuna (Miscellaneous Civil Application E313 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12817 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Civil Application E313 of 2025

Judge

["LA Mumassabba"]

The bill was unopposed, but the taxing officer independently assessed it. Because the subject matter value was not discernible from the record, Schedule 7(2) applied. Considering the nature of the claim and the work done, instruction fees were taxed at Kshs.50,000.00; that figure was then enhanced by one-half for advocate-client costs and subjected to VAT. Several additional items were taxed off for not being provided by Schedule 7 or for excessive claim, resulting in a final taxed amount of Kshs.109,700.00.

Source excerpt

• Taxation of advocate-client bill of costs
• Instruction fees
• Schedule 7 of the advocates remuneration order
• Vat on legal fees
• Reference period after taxation

Cycad Properties Ltd v Attorney General & 4 others

Cycad Properties Ltd v Attorney General & 4 others (Petition 70 of 2010) [2026] KEHC 12886 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition 70 of 2010

Judge

["RE Aburili"]

The taxing master applied the correct legal principles, considered the complexity, public interest, value of the subject matter and comparable awards, and made a discretionary assessment that was neither erroneous in principle nor manifestly excessive. The fact that the present petition had one petitioner rather than 29 did not, by itself, make the fee award wrong. The reference therefore failed and the taxation was upheld.

Source excerpt

• Reference under paragraph 11 of the advocates remuneration order
• Instruction fees
• Getting up fees
• Review/interference with taxing master’s discretion
• Principles of taxation
• Equality and consistency in costs awards

Luther v Executive Committee Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club

Luther v Executive Committee Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club (Judicial Review Application E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC-DR 13 (KLR) (11 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court (DR)

Case number

Judicial Review Application E005 of 2025

Judge

["LA Mumassabba"]

The judicial review matter was not overly complex, was not protracted, and involved no voluminous documents. Applying Schedule 6(j)(ii) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2014 and the relevant authorities, the court held that Kshs.100,000.00 was the reasonable instruction fee, with consequent taxation of the remaining items on the scale stated in the ruling, yielding a total payable of Kshs.166,233.30.

Source excerpt

• Party and party bill of costs
• Instruction fees
• Getting up fees
• Taxation of costs
• Advocates remuneration order 2014
• Judicial review prerogative orders