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 court dismissed a preliminary objection, holding that limitation, alleged fraud, and land-control issues raised contested facts requiring trial evidence.
No-case-to-answer ruling in a murder charge: the High Court found the circumstantial evidence too weak to link Cecilia Maitha Nyaga to the killing.
The court dismissed a land claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged plots matched the suit property or that bonus plots were allocated.
The court held that L.R. No. 13867/2 was matrimonial property and divided beneficial ownership 75% to the applicant and 25% to the respondent.
The High Court allowed an appeal from the Small Claims Court, faulting the trial court for shifting the burden of proof and accepting unproven expense claims.
Ibrahim v Chiko (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of Philip Mwadzoya Chiko – Deceased) (Environment and Land Case E145 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 791 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)
Although the Defendant’s explanation for non-attendance was not fully satisfactory and showed negligence, the court found no deliberate obstruction or abandonment of the case. Because the Plaintiff’s evidence had not been tested by cross-examination and the dispute involved serious land and adverse possession issues, justice required a limited reopening of the proceedings so the Plaintiff could be recalled for cross-examination, while preserving her evidence on record and compensating her through costs.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal reviewed its earlier judgment, finding no inordinate delay and holding the award should be confined to the pleaded sum, with loan savings set off against the debt.
Njehia v Royal Autoworld International Limited & another (Civil Case E1154 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 816 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that the Plaintiff did not prove fraud, forgery, or conspiracy, and the 1st Defendant only received the KShs.450,000 contractually due. However, the 2nd Defendant admitted receiving KShs.1,200,000 from the sale of the vehicle and failed to prove lawful deductions of KShs.100,000 brokerage and KShs.250,000 alleged set-off, so he was liable to account for KShs.350,000, together with interest.
Source excerpt
Kitsao v Kiguru (Civil Case E1558 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 786 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court found sufficient cause to reopen the defence case because the defendant moved promptly after closure, the lost evidence was material, and there was a pending third-party issue plus a related suit arising from the same accident; the plaintiff’s prejudice could be managed by strict directions and costs. However, the court refused a de novo trial, declined to decide the third-party application on its merits, and declined to directly transfer the matter to a named magistrate, instead directing administrative and procedural handling before any consolidation question is taken up.
Source excerpt
Wang’ombe v Njoroge & another (Civil Case E10171 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 13118 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant lost proper control of the Defendant’s vehicle and was negligent; the 1st Defendant was vicariously liable because the 2nd Defendant was driving the 1st Defendant’s vehicle and no evidence rebutted the servant/agency inference; special damages were only partly proved, and the claim for loss of user, though not strictly proved at the pleaded rate, warranted a modest global award because the vehicle was a PSV and was off the road for repairs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
