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 Tribunal dismissed an application to stay or set aside warrants of attachment, holding that the consent judgment remained enforceable despite the later interest clause.
The Tribunal vacated execution warrants for lack of notice of entry of judgment, ordered reconciliation of the loan account, and allowed repayment by instalments.
Fortune Sacco Society Ltd v Kinyua (Tribunal Case E038 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 333 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Cooperative Tribunal entered judgment for Fortune Sacco after formal proof, finding the respondent defaulted on four loans and awarding the claimed sum, costs, and interest.
Ngome v Metropolitan National SaccoSociety Limited & 2 others (Tribunal Case E653 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 323 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Tribunal found that all three garnishees demonstrated good cause why the order nisi could not be made absolute because the relevant accounts had zero or negative balances, some accounts were already affected by prior garnishee orders, and one account was subject to a valid loan security/charge arrangement; therefore, no attachable funds were shown and the order nisi was discharged.
Source excerpt
Nanchang Municipal Engineering Development Group Kenya v Stan Interior Miller (Commercial Case E11629 of 2025) [2026] SCC 218 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant failed to prove that the disputed sum remained outstanding or was payable to it. The agreement showed the debt arose from KPLC electricity charges, and the respondent proved payment to KPLC directly while the claimant led no evidence from KPLC showing any unpaid balance or reimbursement entitlement. The claim therefore failed on a balance of probabilities.
Source excerpt
Kingoro v Muthini (Commercial Case E6765 of 2026) [2026] SCC 224 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant proved only Kshs. 400,000 of the alleged loan on a balance of probabilities because the correspondence supported that principal sum, but the additional Kshs. 100,000 claimed as interest was found unconscionable and unenforceable due to its rapid and disproportionate escalation of a friendly loan.
Source excerpt
Progressive Credit Ltd v Wanjala & another (Commercial Case E2841 of 2025) [2026] SCC 212 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicants showed enough financial strain to justify instalment payment, but not enough to warrant the low instalments they proposed. The respondent's concerns about discrepancies in the financial disclosure were legitimate, yet they did not fully negate the applicants' evidence. Balancing both sides under Rule 27, the court exercised discretion to allow payment by instalments on terms that were more demanding than the applicants proposed but less onerous than the respondent demanded.
Source excerpt
Miruwe v Oguk (Commercial Case E4753 of 2025) [2026] SCC 203 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant proved that she transferred Ksh 800,000 to the respondent's bank account in April 2024 for purchase of a motor vehicle, and the respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the money was received for another lawful purpose or that the vehicle transaction was completed; the claim for the principal sum therefore succeeded, while the separate demand letter charge was not proved.
Source excerpt
Cherowo v Kimtai & another (Commercial Case E094 of 2026) [2026] SCC 199 (KLR) (13 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Claimant proved that he advanced the Respondents Kshs. 370,000 and the alleged repayment of Kshs. 20,000 was not proved. The claim for Kshs. 37,000 as collection charges and legal fees was rejected because it would duplicate a costs award. Instalments were declined because the Respondents provided no evidence of inability to pay in lump sum. Judgment was therefore entered for the principal sum with interest at court rates and costs.
Source excerpt
Umoja Magharibi Kenya Ltd v Wafula (Commercial Case E093 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 457 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court compared the pleaded claim with the M-Pesa payment records and found payments totaling Kshs. 74,222 against a claim of Kshs. 65,125, meaning the claim had been fully satisfied and even overpaid. Because no counterclaim was before the court, no refund order could issue; the claim was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
