Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court held that an arbitral award on quantum of costs, reserved by a final award, is separately enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act and is neither res judicata nor functus officio.
Ngozi v Al-Ghaarify (Formerly Known as Khamis Khalef Ahmed) & another (Civil Case E091 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 819 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Preliminary Objection succeeded only partly. The Court held that the Plaintiff is bound by the Consent Arbitral Award of 19th November 2024 and by the Environment and Land Court rulings of 4th July 2025 and 23rd April 2026, so any claim seeking to reopen, contradict or circumvent those determinations is barred by res judicata and finality. However, the 1st Defendant did not show that every issue in the entire suit, especially claims involving Kenya Commercial Bank PLC and distinct motor vehicle-related obligations, was previously heard and finally decided between the same parties or privi…
Source excerpt
Middle East Bank Kenya Ltd v Kenindia Assurance Compnay Ltd (Commercial Arbitration Cause E009 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12931 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)
The 20 October 2025 communication informed the parties that the award was ready for collection and would be released upon payment of fees, which amounted to receipt/delivery for purposes of section 35(3). The later 10 November 2025 letter only handled collection logistics and did not create a fresh delivery date. The reservation of costs did not prevent time from running. The Chamber Summons filed on 9 February 2026 was therefore outside the statutory three-month period and time-barred.
Source excerpt
Job & Michael Ufalme Ltd v Switch TV Ltd & another (Miscellaneous Commercial Application E1058 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12777 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant failed to meet the high, objective threshold for proving justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality. The complained-of conduct was procedural case management, not bias: the arbitrator only proposed a holiday hearing subject to objections, adjourned when objected to, reasonably sought corroboration for a new adjournment ground, and reverted to a previously agreed fallback date. The application was not made in good faith and appeared aimed at delay. The motion therefore failed.
Source excerpt
Kenya Airline Pilots Investment Ltd v Kayahwe Lane Ltd (Miscellaneous Application E043 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12782 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant proved compliance with Section 36(3) by filing certified copies of the award and arbitration agreements, and the Respondent failed to establish any ground under Section 37 to resist enforcement. The prior challenge to the arbitrator did not result in any order removing him or invalidating the proceedings, and the alleged delay in delivering the award, without demonstrated prejudice or specific public policy conflict, was insufficient to defeat enforcement. The award was therefore recognized and adopted as a judgment of the Court.
Source excerpt
Monacs LLC v Monacs Health Kenya Ltd (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E773 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12805 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant established a prima facie case based on the admitted joint venture arrangement, the admitted supply of equipment, and the partial payment already made, but the court declined any order that would remove or dismantle the hospital equipment because it is in daily clinical use and its removal would prejudice patients and the respondent’s operations. The court therefore granted only limited preservatory relief and financial disclosure, finding that the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo and avoiding disruption to patient care.
Source excerpt
Pink Pearl Investments Ltd v Esteel Construction Ltd (Commercial Miscellaneous Application E805 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12218 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application for review failed because the alleged omission of paragraph 24 did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record: paragraph 24 was part of the Court's reasoning explaining the limits of its jurisdiction, not an operative order, and the Court had in fact considered the relevant contractual and arbitral materials. The complaints amounted to disagreement with the breadth or adequacy of the earlier reasoning, which is a matter for appeal, not review.
Source excerpt
Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company v Capture Solutions Limited (Civil Application E136 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1522 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
Although the single Judge misunderstood the exact procedural relief sought, the application was still incompetent because the applicant had already pursued successive challenges arising from the same arbitral award and High Court judgment. Those earlier rulings, taken together, finally resolved the applicant’s inability to obtain appellate intervention, and the fresh motion was an attempt to relitigate the same dispute. The Court therefore held that res judicata and abuse of process defeated the reference, making extension of time unnecessary.
Source excerpt
Maina v Francis & 10 others (Civil Appeal E593 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1602 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction, the appellant knowingly disobeyed a subsisting court order to deposit Kshs. 53,270,698/= into the joint account, and the High Court properly exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Arbitration Act to preserve ring-fenced funds pending fresh arbitration; no misdirection, irrelevant consideration, or plainly wrong conclusion was shown.
Source excerpt
Solfin Solutions Ltd v Mwakima (Civil Application E070 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1566 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The single judge lacked jurisdiction over the stay and leave components because they are reserved for a full bench, but the supporting affidavit and annexures were not fatally defective. On the narrow issue properly before the single judge, the two-day delay in proper filing of the Notice of Appeal was satisfactorily explained and not inordinate, no prejudice to the respondent was shown, and the applicant deserved an opportunity to appeal; time was therefore extended and the notice and memorandum were deemed duly filed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
