Kenya Case Law

Ngugi v Commissioner of Legal and Board Services Department (Appeal 1088 of 2025)

Ngugi v Commissioner of Legal and Board Services Department (Appeal 1088 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 318 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Tax Appeal Tribunal

Case number

Appeal 1088 of 2025

Judge

["RO Oluoch", "Cynthia B. Mayaka", "E Komolo", "AM Diriye"]

The Tribunal struck out the Respondent’s late Statement of Facts for non-compliance with statutory filing requirements, but it did not grant automatic success to the Appellant. Because the Appellant’s assertions about omitted income, deductions, and partial payment were unrebutsed yet not properly evidenced, the Tribunal exercised its power to set aside the objection decision and remit the matter to the Respondent for fresh reconsideration after the Appellant serves the supporting documents within 14 days.

Source excerpt

• Income tax assessments
• Objection decisions
• Burden of proof
• Striking out pleadings
• Reconsideration by commissioner
• Tax procedures act timelines

Ali v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Ali v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E797 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 315 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Tax Appeal Tribunal

Case number

Tax Appeal E797 of 2026

Judge

["RO Oluoch", "Cynthia B. Mayaka", "E Komolo", "AM Diriye"]

The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving sickness or any other reasonable cause for the 11-month delay because no medical evidence was produced. Without sufficient justification, the Tribunal could not exercise its discretion to enlarge time under section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Late filing of appeal
• Sickness as cause for delay
• Tribunal discretion
• Tax appeals tribunal procedure

Chogo v Mwandi

Chogo v Mwandi (Civil Appeal E030 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12686 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E030 of 2025

Judge

["RN Nyakundi"]

The appeal succeeded because the trial magistrate misapprehended the civil standard of proof and treated registered ownership as conclusive, while ignoring the uncontroverted evidence, the respondent’s default, the interlocutory judgment, and the rebuttable nature of section 8 of the Traffic Act. On a proper re-evaluation, the appellant proved liability on a balance of probabilities and the dismissal could not stand.

Source excerpt

• First appeal re-evaluation standard
• Burden and standard of proof
• Liability in negligence
• Proof of ownership/control of motor vehicle or motorcycle
• Effect of interlocutory judgment and formal proof
• Police abstract as prima facie evidence

Maxam Limited v Commissioner for Customs & Border Control

Maxam Limited v Commissioner for Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal E1399 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 292 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Tax Appeal Tribunal

Case number

Tax Appeal E1399 of 2025

Judge

["RO Oluoch", "Cynthia B. Mayaka", "E Komolo", "AM Diriye"]

The Tribunal held that the Respondent failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that the Appellant’s declared transaction value was unreliable. The Appellant had produced prima facie documentary support, and the Respondent did not discharge the evidential burden to justify rejection of Method 1. The alternative uplift was therefore unlawful, so the appeal succeeded and the Review Decision was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Customs valuation
• Transaction value method
• Review decision timelines
• Burden of proof
• Rejection of declared customs value
• Application of alternative valuation methods

Mobitel Express Ltd v Safaricom Ltd

Mobitel Express Ltd v Safaricom Ltd (Commercial Case E984 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12790 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case E984 of 2021

Judge

["JWW Mong'are"]

The court held that the dealership agreement expired on 1st November 2021 and was not renewed, so there was no subsisting contractual relationship on 2nd December 2021. Safaricom’s letter was a lawful notice of non-renewal, not termination. The DOSA audit was proved and unchallenged by credible evidence, Safaricom’s discretion to decline renewal was contractually reserved and was exercised rationally, and Clause 22.2(d) did not operate to extend an expired contract or create a continuing obligation to trade. Mobitel therefore failed to prove breach or entitlement to relief.

Source excerpt

• Dealer agreement
• Non-renewal of contract
• Specific performance
• Injunction
• Breach of contract
• Dosa audit

Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs & 2 others

Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs & 2 others (Judicial Review E280 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12682 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E280 of 2026

Judge

["WM Musyoka"]

The applicant did not establish a sufficient basis for an interim prohibition order. The suspension had already become effective and implementation had begun, the parties had effectively agreed at the 29 July 2026 meeting that the suspension would remain pending compliance, and the applicant failed to demonstrate the nature or extent of the alleged losses or irreparable prejudice. In those circumstances, the court refused temporary intervention and directed expeditious progress of the matter.

Source excerpt

• Interim prohibition
• Stay of administrative action
• Fair administrative action
• Adequacy of notice
• Temporary suspension of mining operations
• Balance of convenience

Tanui v Mutai

Tanui v Mutai (Commercial Case E740 of 2026) [2026] SCC 206 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E740 of 2026

Judge

["ME Aligula"]

The claimant proved by M-Pesa statements that she transferred Kshs. 995,100 to the respondent. The respondent admitted receipt but failed to prove, beyond bare assertions, that the sums were repayments of an earlier cash loan or otherwise lawfully retained. The alleged illegality relating to TSC employment was unsupported. The claimant therefore succeeded on the refund claim, but not on general damages.

Source excerpt

• Refund of money
• Breach of contract
• Burden of proof
• Unjust retention of funds
• M-pesa transfers
• Alleged illegal contract

Philip v City Loaf Limited (Appeal E014 of 2025)

Philip v City Loaf Limited (Appeal E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5266 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Appeal E014 of 2025

Judge

["M Mbarũ"]

The appeal failed because the appellant’s own evidence showed that he refused the reassigned duties, left work on 1 July 2022, and did not respond to the notice to show cause. The contract allowed reassignment of duties, so the respondent was entitled to allocate alternative work. The court held that the respondent did not unlawfully compel labour and that the appellant effectively deserted duty. The trial magistrate properly dismissed the claim and the counterclaim was not contested on appeal, so the judgment was affirmed.

Source excerpt

• Unfair termination
• Desertion of duty
• Summary dismissal
• Employment contract variation
• Notice to show cause
• Counterclaim for sales proceeds

GMM (Minor suing through his mother and next of Kin JMV) v Fargo Courier Ltd & another

GMM (Minor suing through his mother and next of Kin JMV) v Fargo Courier Ltd & another (Civil Case E236 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 820 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E236 of 2021

Judge

["YA Shikanda"]

[2026] KEMC 820 (KLR)

Source excerpt

Elsek & Elsek (K) Ltd v KCB Bank Kenya Ltd & another

Elsek & Elsek (K) Ltd v KCB Bank Kenya Ltd & another (Commercial Case 236 of 2015 & 189 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 12776 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case 236 of 2015

Judge

["JWW Mong'are"]

The applicant failed to prove any legal ground for setting aside the consent. The allegations of fraud, backdating, and secret execution were unsupported by evidence, the applicant as an interested party had no right to obstruct settlement by the principal parties, and the ownership issue had already been conclusively determined against him by the ELC judgment, making this application an improper attempt to reopen settled issues.

Source excerpt

• Consent orders
• Setting aside consent judgment
• Fraud allegations
• Res judicata
• Interested party rights
• Fair hearing