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
Wangari v National Police Service & 2 others [2025] KEELRC 2139 (KLR)
The court found that repeated, unwarranted transfers and harassment of a police officer violated constitutional and statutory protections, and granted declaratory and injunctive relief.
Kenya Karate Federation v Sports Disputes Tribunal; Shisia & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 10608 (KLR)
The High Court quashed a Sports Disputes Tribunal decision and sent a karate team-selection dispute back to the federation’s internal dispute body.
Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Kisumu & 2 others; Otieno, Ragot & Co Advocates (Ex parte Applicant) [2025] KEHC 10571 (KLR)
The High Court at Kisumu found county officials in contempt for disobeying a mandamus order to pay certified costs, and set the matter for mitigation and sentence.
Ouma & another v Orengo & 11 others [2025] KEHC 10363 (KLR)
The court found that the Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents violated constitutional or statutory provisions in the nomination, vetting, and appointment of the 4th to 12th Respondents as County Executive Committee members. The court emphasized that the County Assembly is vested with exclusive authority to vet and approve such appointments, and that judicial intervention is only warranted where there is clear evidence of procedural impropriety, illegality, or constitutional breach. The Petitioners did not provide do…
Source excerpt
Katiba Institute v Communications Authority of Kenya & 2 others; Data Privacy and Governance Society of Kenya & 3 others (Interested Parties); Ideate Policy Africa Limited (ITPA) (Amicus Curiae) [2025] KEHC 10568 (KLR)
The court found that IMEI numbers, once associated with individuals through device registration and network activation, constitute personal data protected under Article 31 of the Constitution and the Data Protection Act. The impugned notices by the 1st and 2nd respondents, which required the collection, processing, and storage of IMEI numbers, lacked a clear legal basis and failed to comply with statutory requirements, including the need for guidelines, public participation, and a data protection impact assessment. The respondents did not demonstrate that the limitation of the right to privac…
Source excerpt
Republic v Chief Executive Officer, National Government Constituency Development Fund Committee & 2 others; Ngari (Ex parte Applicant) [2025] KEHC 10488 (KLR)
The High Court determined that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for orders of mandamus arising from a judgment delivered by the Environment and Land Court (ELC). The court relied on constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as binding precedent, to hold that jurisdiction over such matters is exclusively vested in the ELC. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be conferred by consent or judicial craft, and that the proper forum for enforcement of ELC judgments, including applications for prerogative orders such as mandamus, is the ELC itself.…
Source excerpt
Autoports Freight Terminals Limited v Kenya Ports Authority [2025] KECA 1297 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in principle by the Taxing Officer in the taxation of costs arising from a judicial review appeal. The court held that in judicial review proceedings, no pecuniary value is assignable to the subject matter, and the Taxing Officer properly exercised discretion in awarding instructions fees above the scale minimum, considering the nature, importance, and difficulty of the appeal. The court also found the record insufficient to conclusively determine whether the Reference was filed out of time and thus declined to strike it out o…
Source excerpt
Achieng & 2 others v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of Government & 2 others [2025] KEHC 10658 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents failed to provide any evidence or substantive response to justify the removal of Mr. Ekunpa from Kenya. The respondents did not demonstrate that Mr. Ekunpa fell within any category of prohibited immigrant or inadmissible person under section 33 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, nor did they provide proof of a valid deportation order or notice. The uncontroverted evidence showed that Mr. Ekunpa was lawfully in Kenya and was removed without being informed of the reasons or given an opportunity to respond, in violation of articles 47 and 50(1) of…
Source excerpt
Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Interior and Co-Ordination of National Government & 2 others; Shakoor (Ex parte Applicant) [2025] KEHC 10291 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave for judicial review orders of certiorari because the application was filed outside the six-month statutory period prescribed by Order 53 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9(3) of the Law Reform Act. The statutory time limit is absolute and cannot be extended by the court. Without compliance with this requirement, the court cannot entertain the application or grant leave, regardless of the merits or the nature of the alleged violations. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is foundational and must be established before a…
Source excerpt
Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service & 2 others; Lesee & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Suing as the Next of Kin and Legal Representative of the Estate of Ali But Esimtoko) [2025] KEHC 10559 (KLR)
The court determined that the application for an order of mandamus to compel payment of compensation was premature because the statutory process under Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act had not been completed. The committee responsible for verifying and recommending claims had not yet vetted the applicants' claim, and the Cabinet Secretary had not made a determination. The doctrine of ripeness precludes judicial intervention until the administrative process is exhausted and an actual controversy arises. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to compel payment at this s…
Source excerpt
Explore more
