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 injunction application over charged land, finding statutory notices were served, the borrower remained in default, and one parcel had already been sold.
Audi v Ukristo Na Ufanisi Savings & Co-operative Society Limited (Tribunal Case E787 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 334 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Tribunal dismissed a borrower’s injunction application over charged land, upheld the lender’s sale process, and ordered a fresh valuation plus room for private treaty.
Maitethia v Momentum Credit Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application E183 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13109 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the subordinate court’s dismissal of the injunction application was a negative order, so there was nothing to stay; review could not be granted by the High Court because review belongs to the court that issued the order; however, the applicant gave a plausible explanation that the ruling may not have been available in time, so leave to appeal out of time was granted. The applicant failed to satisfy the Giella thresholds because the vehicle was security for a loan, default was shown, no proof of repayment was produced, irreparable harm was not established, and the balance o…
Source excerpt
Kombelel & another v Kosgei (Environment and Land Case E086 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 506 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case because the evidence showed an unresolved boundary dispute and competing claims to adjacent parcels, with no land registrar report to confirm trespass. Having failed the first Giella limb, and with the alleged harm being compensable by damages, the application for injunction was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Kimani v Amolo (Civil Case E108 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 502 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case because the record showed a competing sale agreement over the same parcel and the same 1/8 acre portion, both allegedly from the same vendor and on the same date, creating a substantial factual dispute that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence. Since the first limb of Giella was not satisfied, the injunction could not issue.
Source excerpt
Miano v Njombai & 3 others (Commercial Case E063 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12976 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant established a prima facie case because the resignation and share transfer documents contained material inconsistencies, including conflicting resignation dates, identical signatures, incorrect address details, and unexplained email and phone changes that raised serious questions about authenticity and procedural regularity. The court accepted that irreparable harm and balance of convenience favored preserving the company’s assets and shareholding pending trial, but declined to wholly freeze the company bank account because that would amount to finally determining management righ…
Source excerpt
Cfc Stanbic Bank Ltd v Mbugua & another (Commercial Case E334 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 12934 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant established a prima facie case for a mandatory interlocutory injunction because there was an existing unchallenged court order granting access to the charged property, the respondents had not shown compliance with that order, and the charge documents and Land Act entitled the chargee to enter, inspect, preserve and manage the security pending realization. The requested orders were therefore justified to enforce compliance and protect the security.
Source excerpt
Eveready Security Guards Ltd v Esteeem Energy Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E205 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 5275 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the magistrates' court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, and the transfer order made on 29th February 2024 was therefore erroneous and unsustainable. Since the original suit had been filed in a forum without jurisdiction, the transfer could not cure the defect; the proper course was to set aside the transfer order and require the respondent to file a fresh suit on a clean slate.
Source excerpt
Khalsa v Nanji & 2 others (Commercial Case E657 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12826 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The preliminary objection failed because sub judice required factual inquiry and was not a pure point of law, the court had jurisdiction over a derivative claim under the Companies Act, and the objection that no leave had been obtained was false because leave was expressly sought in the application. On the merits, the plaintiff produced prima facie evidence of breach of duty, conflict of interest, diversion of clients and revenue, and denial of access to company systems, satisfying the statutory threshold for permission to continue the derivative claim and justifying interim injunctions to pr…
Source excerpt
Mohamed v Ali (Environment and Land Appeal E117 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5176 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the applicant established an arguable appeal because section 6(1) of Cap 301 allows the tribunal, for sufficient reason, to entertain a reference notwithstanding non-compliance, so the dismissal without considering whether the omission was excusable could amount to an error of law. Eviction would likely dispossess the applicant of her business, risk third-party occupation, and render the appeal nugatory. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo and preserving the substratum of the appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
