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
ML v VC (Children's Case E004 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 855 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Judgment)
Children’s Case E004 of 2026 between ML and VC was delivered at the Malaba Law Courts by AZ Ogange on 2 September 2026. The decision text is still being processed.
In re ER (Minor) (Children's Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 778 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)
The judgment body is unavailable. No ratio can be extracted from the processed heading alone.
Source excerpt
KN v IMN (Children's Case E859 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 762 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEMC 762 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Wako v Hassan (Civil Appeal E014 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13033 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant met the requirements for only a limited and conditional stay. The court found that the custody order required preservation of the children’s current living arrangement pending appeal to avoid destabilising them, that the maintenance order did not amount to substantial loss because it was a continuing welfare obligation, and that the disputed structures and any compensation should be preserved by restraining dealings and ring-fencing compensation. The Applicant was however allowed to continue receiving rent for the children’s upkeep pending appeal.
Source excerpt
DA v ANW (Children's Case E022 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 663 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
Although the application cited repealed provisions and was technically defective, the court declined to strike it out because this was a children’s matter and the best interests of the minors required a substantive determination. On maintenance, the parties had comparable monthly income and therefore had to contribute equally to upkeep and school-related expenses. On custody, exceptional circumstances and the children’s expressed wishes justified preserving the status quo on physical custody, while granting both parents interim legal custody.
Source excerpt
JKK (Suing as Father and the Next Friend) v CKM. (Children's Case E830 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 526 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KEMC 526 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Nchana & another v Land Registrar, Meru (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E015 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5329 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the suit property was held by two adults and one minor as tenants-in-common, the minor's guardians supported the sale, and the minor's share would be protected in an interest-bearing account; applying the best-interests principle, it held that a proper case had been made to authorize the disposal and to permit registration of the transfer.
Source excerpt
EAO v CEOO (Civil Appeal E017 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12849 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court refused to disturb the existing custody arrangement because the application was interlocutory, the appeal would be prejudged by making final custody findings at that stage, no immediate or substantial danger to the child was shown, and maintaining stability, schooling, and continuity best served the child’s welfare pending an expeditious hearing of the appeal.
Source excerpt
KMS v HHA & 2 others (Children's Case E036 & E006 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEMC 501 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The plaintiff failed to plead or prove fraud, and her 2024 birth certificate and DNA material did not displace the established 2017 placement, the child’s long-term lived reality, or the child’s clear wishes. The court held that foster care had run its lawful course, that actual custody must remain with the first defendant, and that joint legal guardianship best served the child’s welfare by preserving stability while allowing access to siblings and relatives.
Source excerpt
JE v FE (Children's Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 458 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
Although the suit was validly filed when V.E was a child, V.E had attained the age of majority by the time of hearing and judgment. That supervening fact removed the basis for the Children’s Court to continue exercising jurisdiction over prayers for legal guardianship and parental responsibility, because those remedies are founded on the subject being a child. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the suit was struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
