Kenya Case Law

Republic v Malenya (Sexual Offence 61 of 2023)

Republic v Malenya (Sexual Offence 61 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 430 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Sentence)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Sexual Offence 61 of 2023

Judge

["AZ Ogange"]

The court found that the offence was serious because it was committed against a child by her father, involving abuse of trust, and that the accused showed no remorse. Balancing the mitigatory factors against the aggravating circumstances and sentencing objectives, the court held that the statutory minimum custodial sentence of ten years was appropriate, with credit for time already spent in lawful custody from 9 July 2026.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Sentencing principles
• Custodial sentence
• Child victim
• Abuse of trust
• Section 333(2) criminal procedure code

Kamau & 8 others v Njoki & 6 others

Kamau & 8 others v Njoki & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E233 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5238 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case E233 of 2024

Judge

["JG Kemei"]

Although the Plaintiffs had repeatedly defaulted on compliance, the court considered the right to be heard and the interests of justice, and exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal. Reinstatement was granted conditionally because the default was attributed to counsel’s failure and the matter could still be determined on the merits without irreparable prejudice to the Defendants if costs and timelines were imposed.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside dismissal
• Reinstatement of suit
• Want of prosecution
• Failure to comply with pretrial directions
• Discretion of court
• Costs

Kenga v Repiblic

Kenga v Repiblic (Criminal Appeal E014 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12671 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E014 of 2026

Judge

["FN Kyambia"]

[2026] KEHC 12671 (KLR)

Source excerpt

Republic v Director of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Said (Ex parte) (Application E007 of 2024)

Republic v Director of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Said (Ex parte) (Application E007 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12665 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Application E007 of 2024

Judge

["J Ngaah"]

The respondents retained custody and control of the motor vehicle at Nyali Police Station but offered no lawful basis for its more than two-year detention, no charge, no forfeiture or other proceedings, and no evidence supporting the assertion that KRA was responsible. The applicant proved ownership and a valid NTSA authorisation permit. The continued detention was therefore arbitrary and unreasonable, infringing Articles 40 and 47, and mandamus properly issued to compel unconditional release of the vehicle.

Source excerpt

• Mandamus
• Detention of motor vehicle
• Police powers
• Non-joinder
• Right to property
• Fair administrative action

Dosh & another v Joho & another

Dosh & another v Joho & another (Constitutional Petition E042 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12670 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E042 of 2021

Judge

["J Ngaah"]

The Court of Appeal’s judgment setting aside the contempt finding against the 1st Respondent removed the pleaded foundation of the petition as against him. Because the petition sought declarations and orders based on that now-vacated finding, nothing sustainable remained to be tried against the 1st Respondent. The petition and related motion were therefore struck out only as against him, not as against the 2nd Respondent.

Source excerpt

• Striking out pleadings
• Abuse of process
• Effect of appellate judgment
• Supporting affidavit by advocate
• Contempt-based disqualification from office
• Judicial notice

Naikuni v Chairman Board of Trustee Purko Development Trust Seleila Ole Mwanik & 3 others

Naikuni v Chairman Board of Trustee Purko Development Trust Seleila Ole Mwanik & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5167 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2025

Judge

["LN Gacheru"]

The Petitioner failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities and with the required constitutional precision, that the Board of Trustees lacked authority under the Purko Development Trust Deed, that the lease process violated public participation, access to information, fair administrative action, procurement law, the Crops Act or environmental law, or that the suit property had been shown to be unlawfully dealt with as community land. Because no constitutional or statutory violation was established, the requested declarations, cancellation, injunction and damages could not issue.

Source excerpt

• Community land under article 63
• Purko development trust authority
• Public participation
• Fair administrative action
• Access to information
• Procurement legality

Ngari v Miano & 2 others

Ngari v Miano & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 76 of 1000) [2026] KEELC 5302 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case 76 of 1000

Judge

["EK Makori"]

The application failed because judgment in the suit had been delivered in 2013 while the defendant was alive, meaning the suit had already been conclusively determined and there was nothing left to revive or substitute under Order 24 Rule 4. The applicant also delayed unreasonably and sought relief in respect of a concluded suit without proper basis.

Source excerpt

• Revival of suit
• Substitution of deceased party
• Abatement of suit
• Setting aside judgment/orders
• Locus standi
• Delay/inordinate delay

Jilao Company Ltd v Fahari Trading Ltd & 2 others

Jilao Company Ltd v Fahari Trading Ltd & 2 others (Civil Case 160 of 2015) [2026] KEHC 12667 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 160 of 2015

Judge

["J Ngaah"]

The objection succeeded because the motor vehicle was shown by NTSA records to be registered in the name of Abdullahi Ahmed Haji, not the judgment debtor company, and the decree holder produced no evidence to displace that prima facie ownership. The preliminary objections also failed: Order 9 rule 9 did not apply to a third-party objector, and res judicata was not established because the prior ruling had not determined the merits of ownership.

Source excerpt

• Objection proceedings
• Attachment of property
• Third-party ownership claim
• Res judicata
• Change of advocate after judgment
• Corporate personality

Akech v Republic

Akech v Republic (Criminal Appeal E045 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12806 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E045 of 2025

Judge

["WN Molonko"]

[2026] KEHC 12806 (KLR)

Source excerpt

• Criminal appeal
• Appellate review

Hemed v Abed

Hemed v Abed (Civil Appeal E038 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12666 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E038 of 2025

Judge

["J Ngaah"]

The preliminary objection failed because it depended on a disputed factual question—whether the appellant was introducing evidence not before the Small Claims Court—which could only be resolved by examining the trial record. That required factual ascertainment, so the objection was not a pure point of law under Mukisa Biscuit. Order 42 Rule 27 was also inapplicable because no application to adduce additional evidence was before the court.

Source excerpt

• Preliminary objections
• Additional evidence on appeal
• Striking out appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Small claims court appeal