Kenya Case Law

Matey v Safaricom PLC

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Miscellaneous Application E043 of 2026

Judge

D Mburu

The High Court partly allowed a subscriber's application compelling Safaricom to disclose access logs and records of requests for her mobile numbers and M-Pesa data, holding that Articles 31 and 35 and the Data Protection Act apply, but refusing to order creation of non-existent records.

• Right to privacy under article 31 of the constitution
• Right of access to information under article 35 of the constitution
• Access to information act, 2016, sections 4, 5, 8 and 9
• Data protection act, 2019, sections 25 and 26
• Disclosure of subscriber and m-pesa account information
• Court-compelled production of records within a party's possession, custody or control

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd & another v Chana

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd & another v Chana (Civil Appeal E257 of 2023 & E043 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 12781 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E257 of 2023

Judge

["RC Rutto"]

The suit was not res judicata and the subordinate court had jurisdiction because the claim was a civil action for negligence, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, not a regulatory dispute. Airtel was liable for negligently permitting an unauthorized SIM replacement, and the Bank failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that its fraud-control and response systems met the required standard of care. The respondent was contributorily negligent for failing to promptly alert the Bank after his mobile line became inoperative. However, the award of Kshs. 400,000 for mental torture and stress was legall…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Res judicata
• Breach of contract
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Negligence
• Sim swap fraud

Rogo (Suing on her own Behalf and on Behalf of M-Pesa Account Holders who have been Victims of Fraud) v Safaricom Plc & 4 others

Rogo (Suing on her own Behalf and on Behalf of M-Pesa Account Holders who have been Victims of Fraud) v Safaricom Plc & 4 others (Commercial Case E091 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11931 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case E091 of 2025

Judge

["JWW Mong'are"]

The preliminary objection failed because the KICA dispute mechanism was not mandatory, the plaint raised genuine constitutional issues within the High Court’s Article 165(2)(b) jurisdiction, CAK itself admitted it had no mandate over the financial-services aspect of the dispute, and the Plaintiff had already pursued the available complaint route under the National Payment Systems Regulations without response. CBK remained a proper interested party because its supervisory role was relevant to effective relief and enforcement, but CAK disclosed no cause of action against it and was unnecessary…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Doctrine of exhaustion
• Interested party joinder/striking out
• Regulatory dispute resolution
• M-pesa fraud complaints
• Constitutional rights under articles 35, 46 and 47

Odek v Communications Authority of Kenya & another

Odek v Communications Authority of Kenya & another (Judicial Review E134 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11273 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E134 of 2026

Judge

["WM Musyoka"]

The High Court held that although the respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal under section 102E of the Kenya Information and Communications Act lacked power to grant the relief sought in the judicial review motion. The tribunal was therefore not an adequate alternative remedy, so the court had jurisdiction. However, on the merits, the applicant failed to show that the respondent unlawfully, unreasonably, or procedurally unfairly handled the complaint, because the respondent had investigated the matter and communicated with both the int…

Source excerpt

• Exhaustion doctrine
• Jurisdiction
• Mandamus
• Unlawful administrative delay
• Complaint handling by regulator
• Statutory remedies

Wanjiru v Safaricom Plc Limited & another (Small Claims Appeal E368 of 2025)

Wanjiru v Safaricom Plc Limited & another (Small Claims Appeal E368 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11569 (KLR) (Civ) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Small Claims Appeal E368 of 2025

Judge

["EKO Ogola"]

The High Court held that Clause 10.1 of the M-Pesa Terms and Conditions was part of the binding written contract and the trial court erred in law by allowing oral evidence to contradict it. The court further held that once the Appellant showed he was incapacitated, the evidential burden shifted to the Respondents to prove compliance with the withdrawal process, which they failed to do. Reliance on an unsigned internal investigation report was improper. The Appellant therefore proved his claim for refund and was entitled to general damages for the contractual breach and resulting distress.

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of contractual terms
• Parol evidence rule
• Contra proferentem
• Burden and evidential burden of proof
• Unsigned investigation report
• Unauthorized m-pesa withdrawals

Moreplex Television Kenya Ltd v Multi Choice Kenya Ltd & 2 others

Moreplex Television Kenya Ltd v Multi Choice Kenya Ltd & 2 others (Petition E268 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11236 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E268 of 2025

Judge

["PM Nyaundi"]

The Court held that the Petition sought reliefs available under the statutory regime governing communications and competition disputes, particularly under the Kenya Information and Communications Act and the Competition Act. Because the Petitioner had not shown that any exception to exhaustion or constitutional avoidance applied, the High Court lacked a basis to entertain the matter at first instance and had to down tools.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Preliminary objection
• Exhaustion of remedies
• Constitutional avoidance
• Justiciability
• Broadcasting rights

Bonfire Adventures & Events Ltd & another v Kabu & another

Bonfire Adventures & Events Ltd & another v Kabu & another (Commercial Case E729 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8660 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case E729 of 2025

Judge

["JWW Mong'are"]

The Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case because they admitted the 48 lines were registered in the Defendant's name, produced no trust instrument, board resolution, written agreement, or direct purchase contribution showing the lines were held for the company, and did not rebut the statutory presumption tied to the registered subscriber. Since the first Giella hurdle failed, the court did not consider irreparable harm or balance of convenience.

Source excerpt

• Temporary injunction
• Preservation order
• Ownership of sim lines
• Trust in corporate assets
• Prima facie case
• Sub judice

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd v Kariuki & another

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd v Kariuki & another (Civil Appeal E121 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9771 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E121 of 2024

Judge

["AN Ongeri"]

The Court held that the SIM swap was the catalyst, but not a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation. The bank had an independent duty to protect the customer’s account and to interrogate glaringly suspicious, rapid, high-value transfers. The telecom provider also remained liable because the SIM swap was a direct breach within its own sphere of duty. The apportionment adopted by the trial court was therefore reasonable and just, and no ground for appellate interference was established.

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Causation
• Novus actus interveniens
• Sim swap fraud
• Unauthorized banking transactions

Injila v Airtel Kenya Limited

Injila v Airtel Kenya Limited (Commercial Case E1401 of 2025) [2026] SCC 148 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Small Claims Court

Case number

Commercial Case E1401 of 2025

Judge

["TN Mwangeka"]

The Claimant admitted that the erroneous withdrawal was his own error and failed to show that Airtel Kenya Limited had any contractual or legal duty to refund him. The court held that the Airtel Money Terms and Conditions bound him as a user, expressly excluded Airtel’s liability for mistaken transactions, and limited liability for acts of Airtel Money Agents. Because the Claimant did not prove illegality, unconscionability, fraud, or breach by Airtel, the claim failed.

Source excerpt

• Erroneous mobile money transaction
• Refund liability
• Contractual limitation of liability
• Burden of proof
• Independent contractors
• Recovery of mistaken transfer

Gachoka & another v Cabinet Secretary, The National Treasury and Economic Planning & 7 others

Gachoka & another v Cabinet Secretary, The National Treasury and Economic Planning & 7 others (Petition E051 of 2026 & E836 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 6877 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (18 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E051 of 2026

Judge

["F Gikonyo", "RE Aburili", "TW Ouya"]

The court held that, although the transaction was presented as a commercial divestiture and had moved through parliamentary and regulatory channels, the petition raised serious arguable constitutional issues on public participation, transparency, accountability, valuation, data sovereignty and national interest. Those issues were not abstract, the transaction had not been completed, and interim restraint was necessary to preserve the substratum of the petition and prevent possible nugatory effect. Accordingly, jurisdiction existed and conservatory relief was justified.

Source excerpt

• Conservatory orders
• Jurisdiction
• Ripeness
• Separation of powers
• Public participation
• Disposition of public assets