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
Kenyan High Court held that a binding sale contract existed but the buyer failed to prove the shipped consignments were non-conforming, so the seller recovered USD 376,644.70 and the lost-profit counterclaim was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed most of the appeal from the Small Claims Court, struck out one ground as factual, and upheld the refund award for non-conforming spare parts.
The High Court held the appeal raised points of law, found contractual privity through agency, upheld the conditional refund order, and set aside the post-judgment reporting direction.
Mbugua v Mugada (Commercial Case E4756 of 2025) [2026] SCC 226 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant did not demonstrate any statutory ground for review. His complaints about ownership of the motor vehicle, the effect of registration, the alleged payment of Kshs.500,000, and the concepts of detinue and conversion all required re-evaluation of evidence and therefore could not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The proper remedy, if he believed the court erred in law or fact, was appeal, not review. Because the review failed, there was no basis for stay of execution or for setting aside and substituting the judgment.
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
Transmax Printing Technology Limited (Formerly Knwon as Real Printing Technology Limited) v Graphic Vision Limited (Small Claims Appeal E001 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12691 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant satisfied the delay and security requirements, and showed a real risk of loss because the decree involved reciprocal restitution of money against return of a used machine that would be difficult to restore to its former condition. Stay was therefore justified, but only on the condition that the entire decretal sum be deposited as security within 30 days.
Source excerpt
Remo Chemicals and Laboratory Equipments Ltd v Tarakwa Secondary School (Commercial Case E4900 of 2025) [2026] SCC 188 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that goods were supplied to the respondent and that money remained unpaid. The respondent’s post-filing part-payment of KSh 100,000 was treated as an implicit admission of liability, defeating the bare denial and confirming an outstanding balance of KSh 505,993, which was awarded with costs and interest.
Source excerpt
New Status Motors Ltd & another v Ndegwa & 2 others (Civil Appeal E863 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11658 (KLR) (Civ) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the trial court’s findings that the 1st Respondent had performed her obligations under the sale transaction and that the intermediary had apparent authority were supported by the evidence and applicable law; any complaint about non-remittance of the purchase price lay between the Appellants and the intermediary, not against the innocent purchaser, and the counterclaim was therefore unproved.
Source excerpt
Aga Khan University Hospital v Broadcom Ltd (Civil Appeal E221 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11532 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the sale was by description and the implied condition of merchantable quality applied, but the appellant still bore the burden to rebut that presumption with evidence showing inherent defect. The court found the appellant had an opportunity to examine and test the goods at delivery and installation, and mere complaints or emails were insufficient to prove that the LED lights were unmerchantable or that any defects were inherent rather than caused otherwise.
Source excerpt
Stanmore Holdings Ltd & another v Huleti Enterprises Ltd & 3 others (Miscellaneous Application E421 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10400 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (15 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court held that the dispute was a commercial sale of goods matter properly before the High Court in Nairobi, that the 2nd Applicant remained an unpaid seller because the Respondent paid only half the price and the contract reserved transfer of property until full payment, and that the circumstances justified judicial direction to amend the Bill of Lading and Cargo Manifest so the goods could be lawfully transferred to the new buyer and the seller's losses mitigated.
Source excerpt
Explore more
