Kenya Case Law

Endarasha Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd v Wananchi DT Sacco Society Ltd & 2 others

Endarasha Farmers Cooperative Society Ltd v Wananchi DT Sacco Society Ltd & 2 others (Tribunal Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KECOPT 316 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Cooperative Tribunal

Case number

Tribunal Case E007 of 2026

Judge

["J Mwatsama", "B Sawe", "F Lotuiya", "PO Aol", "M Chesikaw"]

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had shown an arguable prima facie case through evidence of the loan dispute, communications, partial payments, and the intended sale process. It further held that the motor vehicle was integral to the Applicant’s milk collection business and that its loss would not be adequately cured by damages. On balance, preserving the vehicle pending hearing was appropriate. The application therefore satisfied the injunction threshold.

Source excerpt

• Temporary injunction
• Repossession and sale of charged motor vehicle
• Loan default
• Prima facie case
• Irreparable harm
• Balance of convenience

Ndungu v Maina

Ndungu v Maina (Civil Case E207 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 492 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Civil Case E207 of 2024

Judge

["GK Waithira"]

[2026] KEMC 492 (KLR)

Source excerpt

In re Estate of Nkarichia (Deceased)

In re Estate of Nkarichia (Deceased) (Succession Cause 184 of 2004) [2026] KEHC 12958 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Succession Cause 184 of 2004

Judge

["HM Nyaga"]

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the orders sought because the applicant had already filed a Notice of Appeal on time; section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act only covers the first extension for giving notice of intention to appeal, and once that step was taken, any further relief relating to the appeal lay exclusively before the Court of Appeal. The preliminary objection was therefore meritorious and the application was struck out.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to appeal
• Notice of appeal
• Jurisdiction of the high court versus court of appeal
• Preliminary objection
• Stay of execution

Kithinji v Kimathi (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Purity Kendi Mauru alias Purity Kendi Julius (Deceased) & 2 others

Kithinji v Kimathi (Suing as legal representative of the Estate of Purity Kendi Mauru alias Purity Kendi Julius (Deceased) & 2 others (Civil Appeal E068 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12905 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E068 of 2021

Judge

["HM Nyaga"]

The court found that the applicants were duly served with the mention notice, had actual or constructive notice through the court record and e-filing system, offered no candid or reasonable explanation for their default, and delayed for 9 months before seeking relief; the application therefore lacked merit.

Source excerpt

• Setting aside judgment
• Service of notice
• Extension of time
• Inordinate delay
• Ex parte hearing

Mwangi v King’ori

Mwangi v King’ori (Environment and Land Appeal 38 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12914 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Environment and Land Appeal 38 of 2024

Judge

["EK Makori"]

The magistrate court had territorial competence because the Land Control Board consent was issued in Nyeri and the record showed the land was in Nyeri County; in any event, lack of territorial jurisdiction was not a basis to strike out the suit. The prayer for specific performance was sufficiently certain because it arose from the sale agreement, which obliged the vendor to deliver completion documents for transfer, and the agreement was valid, fully paid, and supported by Land Control Board consent. The appeal succeeded.

Source excerpt

• Territorial jurisdiction
• Specific performance
• Sale of land agreement
• Land control board consent
• First appeal re-evaluation of evidence

Rotich & another v Serem & another

Rotich & another v Serem & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E029 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5182 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E029 of 2025

Judge

["GMA Ongondo"]

The application was dismissed because it was found to be an abuse of the court process, the court having noted a related matter involving some of the same parties and the same subject matter that had already been determined, making the fresh transfer request improper.

Source excerpt

• Transfer of suit
• Parallel proceedings
• Abuse of court process
• Multiplicity of actions
• Costs

In re Estate of Gachunga

In re Estate of Gachunga (Succession Cause 223 of 1995) [2026] KEMC 487 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Magistrate's Court

Case number

Succession Cause 223 of 1995

Judge

["GK Waithira"]

The administrator obtained and confirmed the grant by concealing the existence of the applicant, a material beneficiary, so the grant was liable to revocation under section 76. The 1st interested party could not rely on section 93 because the administrator had no lawful title to sell the deceased’s land before proper authority existed. The dispute over land parcel 589 had already been conclusively determined by the Land Disputes Tribunal and adopted by court, so it was res judicata and could not be reopened.

Source excerpt

• Revocation of grant
• Concealment of material facts
• Bona fide purchaser
• Section 93 law of succession act
• Res judicata
• Distribution of deceased estate

Wij Holdings Ltd & another v Ksrunya

Wij Holdings Ltd & another v Ksrunya (Civil Appeal E089 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12906 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E089 of 2024

Judge

["HM Nyaga"]

The appellants adduced no evidence to rebut the respondent’s proof of the accident and negligence, so the trial court’s finding of 100% liability stood. On quantum, the trial court’s award of Kshs. 750,000 for pain and suffering was within the range of comparable awards for a pelvic fracture and related injuries, and there was no basis for appellate interference. Special damages were also unchallenged.

Source excerpt

• First appellate review
• Burden of proof
• Liability in negligence
• Quantum of damages
• Special damages
• General damages

RIAS v DMK (Adoption Cause 4 of 2020)

RIAS v DMK (Adoption Cause 4 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 12907 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Adoption Cause 4 of 2020

Judge

["HM Nyaga"]

The application failed because section 190 of the Children Act does not permit revocation of an adoption order on the basis advanced by the applicant. The alleged post-adoption psychiatric condition of the respondent, without proof of fraud, procedural irregularity, mistake, or any statutory ground for review, was insufficient to undo a valid adoption. Revocation would be more prejudicial to the child than beneficial, so the court preserved the adoption arrangement subject to monitoring, treatment, and supervised access.

Source excerpt

• Revocation of adoption order
• Best interests of the child
• Parental mental health and capacity
• Child protection and care orders
• Supervised access

Mungai v Njoroge & another

Mungai v Njoroge & another (Environment and Land Case 62 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5197 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case 62 of 2023

Judge

["JM Onyango"]

The court held that although the matter was not strictly res judicata because the parties were not identical, ownership of the suit property had already been conclusively determined in ELC No. 114 of 2017 in favor of the 1st Defendant. That prior determination meant the Applicant could not establish a prima facie case on the basis of the sale agreement, so the injunction threshold was not met and the application failed.

Source excerpt

• Res judicata
• Temporary injunction
• Prima facie case
• Title to land
• Trust land ownership
• Nemo dat quod non habet