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
5 court collections
Last checked

Kenya decisions

Source-linked decisions currently available to browse

Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12744 (KLR)

Nyali Latenight Chemist & Medical Services Company Limited v ABSA Bank Kenya Plc

Nyali Latenight Chemist & Medical Services Company Limited v ABSA Bank Kenya Plc (Commercial Appeal E005 of 1000) [2026] KEHC 12744 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

The appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to extract and include the order appealed from in the record. That omission was a substantive defect going to the root of the appeal, so the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits and had to strike out the appeal.

  • Competence of appeal
  • Extraction of decree/order
  • Record of appeal
  • Jurisdiction
  • Temporary injunction
  • Set-off and consolidation of accounts
Read case analysis
Tax law [2026] KETAT 314 (KLR)

Panafrican Centre for Strategic Dev. Ltd v Commissioner Micro & Small Taxpayers

Panafrican Centre for Strategic Dev. Ltd v Commissioner Micro & Small Taxpayers (Tax Appeal E048 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 314 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)

The Tribunal held that the VAT Special Table functions as an enforcement mechanism for taxes allegedly due, but enforcement cannot lawfully proceed while the underlying assessments are still under the statutory objection process in section 51 of the Tax Procedures Act. Because the Respondent acted before completion of due process, the Applicant established a prima facie case warranting intervention under section 18 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act.

  • Vat special table
  • Tax objection process
  • Fair administrative action
  • Tax enforcement pending dispute resolution
  • Prima facie case
  • Tribunal stay/intervention powers
Read case analysis
Environment and land law [2026] KEELC 5250 (KLR)

Akoth v Mwatsami

Akoth v Mwatsami (Environment and Land Case 6 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 5250 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

The court found the charge document valid and accepted that the defendant’s father had executed the charge, but held that there was no evidence of service of the mandatory statutory notices, no proof of advertisement or public auction, and no evidence of valuation before sale. Because the due process for sale was not complied with, the alleged sale was irregular and the plaintiff’s claim failed while the counterclaim succeeded.

  • Trespass
  • Eviction
  • Charge over land
  • Statutory notice
  • Power of sale
  • Public auction
Read case analysis
Tax law [2026] KETAT 288 (KLR)

Sonko v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes

Sonko v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E033 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 288 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

The Appellant produced no credible evidence showing that it had supplied the requested documents or that the Respondent ignored relevant material. Given the statutory burden on the taxpayer to prove the assessment incorrect, and the Appellant's failure to discharge that burden, the Respondent was justified in using banking analysis and confirming the assessment.

  • Income tax assessments
  • Banking analysis method
  • Burden of proof in tax appeals
  • Production of tax records
  • Objection decision
  • Late objection
Read case analysis
Advocates’ remuneration [2026] KEELRC 2377 (KLR)

E.O Ratemo and Company Advocates v Sucham Investment Ltd t/a Amani Tiwi Beach Resort

E.O Ratemo and Company Advocates v Sucham Investment Ltd t/a Amani Tiwi Beach Resort (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2377 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)

The Respondent’s challenge to the taxation and decree failed because it did not follow the mandatory procedure under Paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order and because the record showed representation, service, and engagement through its directors and advocate. The Applicant’s execution application succeeded because the decree remained valid and unsatisfied, execution had failed, and the Respondent’s conduct and common control across the corporate group justified oral examination and conditional veil lifting in aid of recovery.

  • Taxation of advocate-client bill of costs
  • Setting aside certificate of taxation and decree
  • Reference out of time under paragraph 11 of the advocates (remuneration) order
  • Service and notice requirements
  • Ostensible authority and retainer
  • Oral examination of directors in aid of execution
Read case analysis
Tax law [2026] KETAT 302 (KLR)

Guliyes Group Ltd v Commissioner Domestic Taxes

Guliyes Group Ltd v Commissioner Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E746 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 302 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)

The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving reasonable cause for the five-year delay, failed to place admissible evidence before the Tribunal to support the alleged sickness and agent default, and therefore did not meet the threshold under section 13(4) of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act for extension of time. The application was accordingly dismissed.

  • Extension of time
  • Burden of proof
  • Delay in filing appeal
  • Tax appeal procedure
  • Stay of tax decision
Read case analysis
Succession law [2026] KEHC 12709 (KLR)

In re Estate of Mohere (Deceased)

In re Estate of Mohere (Deceased) (Civil Appeal E068 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12709 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

The application failed because the appellant did not obtain a stay of execution, so the respondent was legally entitled to implement the decree; the subdivision had already substantially taken place; and the court could not grant retrospective status quo orders or nullify completed transactions at interlocutory stage. The proper forum for the substantive complaints is the appeal itself.

  • Status quo orders
  • Stay of execution
  • Preservation of estate property
  • Subdivision of estate land
  • Ongoing appeal and implementation of decree
  • Abuse of court process
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEMC 444 (KLR)

Republic v Luhos

Republic v Luhos (Criminal Case E102 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 444 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

The court found that the complainants' phones were stolen and were recovered from the accused a day later, the complainants positively identified and unlocked the phones in court, and the accused offered no believable explanation. Applying the doctrine of recent possession, the prosecution proved counts 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt, warranting conviction for stealing.

  • Stealing
  • Doctrine of recent possession
  • Identification of stolen property
  • Unlawful presence in kenya
  • Burden and standard of proof
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] KEMC 441 (KLR)

Republic v DW (Sexual Offence E053 of 2025)

Republic v DW (Sexual Offence E053 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 441 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

The prosecution proved the complainants’ ages and that the accused was known and identified by the children, but it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any specific overt act by the accused directed at causing penetration. The words used by the children, including 'bad manners' and similar euphemisms, without particulars of the conduct, were insufficient to establish attempted defilement or the alternative indecent act charges. The medical evidence was inconclusive and did not corroborate attempted penetration. The accused was therefore acquitted.

  • Attempted defilement
  • Indecent act with a child
  • Proof of age
  • Identification by recognition
  • Evaluation of child witness evidence
  • Burden and standard of proof
Read case analysis
Tort law [2026] KEMC 622 (KLR)

Barasa v Thuo

Barasa v Thuo (Civil Case E370 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 622 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

The Defendant was 100% liable because he called no evidence to rebut the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff was a blameless passenger, and the circumstances of the rear-end collision established negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver. General damages of Kshs. 500,000 were appropriate for the soft tissue injuries and fractured clavicle. Special damages of Kshs. 5,530 were strictly proved. Future medical expenses were declined because the treatment had been met by SHA and the Plaintiff did not prove entitlement to direct recovery of that sum from the Defendant.

  • Negligence
  • Vicarious liability
  • Passenger liability
  • Quantum of damages
  • General damages
  • Special damages
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.