Atandi v Republic
Atandi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E104 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12811 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KEHC 12811 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Read case analysis 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
Search and filter Kenya case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
Omasaba v FAO (Suing as Next Friend of MO – Deceased Minor)
Omasaba v FAO (Suing as Next Friend of MO – Deceased Minor) (Civil Appeal E025 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12701 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The trial court considered the appellant’s submissions, so that ground failed. On quantum, only the dependency award was outside the acceptable range: Kshs. 1,000,000 for a nine-year-old minor with no earnings or dependants was inordinately high against comparable authorities and had no special justification. The appellate court therefore interfered only with that head and reduced it to Kshs. 700,000, leaving the other awards intact.
Source excerpt
- Appellate interference with damages
- Quantum of damages
- Loss of dependency for a minor
- Loss of expectation of life
- Pain and suffering
- Special damages
Too v Raycon Ltd
Too v Raycon Ltd (Civil Case E208 of 2025) [2026] SCC 205 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant proved, through consistent police records, witness testimony, assessment evidence, and unchallenged documentary proof, that motor vehicle KBB 540X rammed the rear of KDG 102M and caused the loss. The respondent called no evidence to rebut liability or quantum, so the court found the accident solely caused by the respondent’s driver and held the respondent 100% liable, with special damages proved in the sum of Ksh 175,130.
Source excerpt
- Road traffic accident liability
- Vicarious liability
- Burden of proof
- Subrogated claim by insurer
- Proof of special damages
- Assessment and repair costs
Yarde Park Lounge Ltd v Commissioner for Domestic Taxes
Yarde Park Lounge Ltd v Commissioner for Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E1208 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 308 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Tribunal held that the Appellant did not sufficiently support its objection with the documents and records requested by the Respondent, and therefore failed to discharge its statutory burden of proof. The Respondent’s objection decision and additional assessments were consequently justified.
Source excerpt
- Objection decision
- Burden of proof
- Document production
- Unsupported expenses
- Undeclared income
- Vat exemption on cereals
Cherunya v Max-Global Ltd & 2 others
Cherunya v Max-Global Ltd & 2 others (Commercial Case E651 of 2026) [2026] SCC 211 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The objection failed because it was not founded on a settled pure point of law and depended on factual inquiry into the respondents’ alleged personal involvement and the claim’s merits; in addition, misjoinder or non-joinder cannot defeat the suit under Order 1 Rule 9.
Source excerpt
- Preliminary objection
- Misjoinder of parties
- Cause of action
- Liability of company directors
- Costs
Khalsa v Nanji & 2 others
Khalsa v Nanji & 2 others (Commercial Case E657 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12826 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The preliminary objection failed because sub judice required factual inquiry and was not a pure point of law, the court had jurisdiction over a derivative claim under the Companies Act, and the objection that no leave had been obtained was false because leave was expressly sought in the application. On the merits, the plaintiff produced prima facie evidence of breach of duty, conflict of interest, diversion of clients and revenue, and denial of access to company systems, satisfying the statutory threshold for permission to continue the derivative claim and justifying interim injunctions to pr…
Source excerpt
- Derivative action
- Leave to continue derivative claim
- Preliminary objection
- Res judicata/res sub judice
- Jurisdiction
- Fiduciary duty
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited (Flamingo Farm)
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited (Flamingo Farm) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E049 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2373 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the affidavit sworn by the respondent’s legal officer was competent, but the applicant failed to establish any error, ambiguity, or new matter warranting review or stay. The impugned order was clear and confined to the proceedings before the court, and the application improperly sought to introduce matters outside the scope of the case.
Source excerpt
- Review of court order
- Stay of execution
- Secret ballot for union recognition
- Affidavit competency
- Appeal versus review
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Ltd (Kingfisher Farm)
Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Ltd (Kingfisher Farm) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E050 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2375 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the review application lacked merit because the impugned order was clear and unambiguous: the Commissioner of Labour, through the Naivasha Labour Office, was directed to conduct a secret ballot within 45 days. No new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason was shown to justify review. The court further held that the Respondent was impermissibly introducing new issues concerning IBIS and Siraji farms, which were not parties to the proceedings and fell outside the dispute. The application for stay was also rejected.
Source excerpt
- Review of orders
- Clarification of court orders
- Stay of execution
- Secret ballot for union recognition
- Advocate’s affidavit on contentious matters
- Appeal versus review
Farmers Choice Ltd v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control
Farmers Choice Ltd v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal E130 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 289 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal was struck out because the Appellant did not challenge the tariff review decision within the 45-day statutory period required by section 230 of EACCMA. Time ran from the Respondent’s review decision of 10 April 2025, and the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 January 2026 was fatally out of time. Because the appeal was incompetent, the Tribunal refused to address the tax merits.
Source excerpt
- Tariff classification
- Customs review procedure
- Appeal timelines
- Deemed allowed review applications
- Import duty
- Vat
Masai v Bolpak Trading Company Ltd
Masai v Bolpak Trading Company Ltd (Civil Appeal E225 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12734 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant failed to show good and sufficient cause for filing the appeal out of time, so enlargement of time was refused and the memorandum of appeal remained incompetent. Because a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 requires a competent appeal, the prayer for stay necessarily failed.
Source excerpt
- Extension of time to file appeal
- Stay of execution pending appeal
- Competence of an out-of-time appeal
- Sub judice objection
- Substantial loss
- Security for due performance
Explore more