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 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.
Mwangi v Top Rides Motors Ltd (Commercial Case E7159 of 2025) [2026] SCC 191 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The claimant proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent, as agent and custodian of the vehicle, breached its duty to keep the vehicle safely, and that damage occurred while the vehicle was in its custody. However, the claimant only proved actual engine purchase expenses of Kshs. 650,000, not the pleaded Kshs. 800,000, so the award was limited to the proven loss plus towing charges.
Source excerpt
Roy Properties Ltd v Goal Estates Ltd (Civil Appeal E103 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12225 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellate court held that the respondent, as accounting agent, bore the contractual duty to keep and render records of rent collections and deductions, but failed to produce credible reconciliation evidence to support its alleged overpayment. The respondent’s own admission of debt, coupled with the appellant’s records and the respondent’s failure to substantiate its contrary figures, made the appellant’s account more reliable. The trial court erred in treating occupancy and payment as unproved and in rejecting the appellant’s tabulation; the appellant therefore proved its claim.
Source excerpt
Kimani & another v Mohammed alias Jaro Mohammed Abdi & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E022 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 5192 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the evidence showed a real business and agency arrangement among the parties, not a plaintiff-only purchase of the suit property. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the sole contributors or that fraud was specifically proved against the defendants. The court accepted that the 1st defendant had authority to act for the 3rd defendant, that the 3rd defendant was the beneficial owner, and that the plaintiffs had already received the commission/value attributable to their role in the wider business dealings. On that basis, the plaintiffs’ suit failed, while the coun…
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
Murunga Investments Ltd v Oshumba & 2 others (Civil Appeal E010 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11509 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the Appellant’s own conduct—executing and sealing the letter of offer, using its advocates to progress the transaction, and allowing steps toward fit-out—clothed the 3rd Respondent with ostensible authority on which the Respondents reasonably relied. The alleged non-remittance of funds by the 3rd Respondent was an internal principal-agent issue and did not defeat liability to innocent third parties. The Respondents strictly proved special damages of Kshs. 1,128,272, and no basis existed to disturb the trial court’s costs order.
Source excerpt
Twinkle World Ltd v Nairobi Bottlers Ltd (Commercial Case 146 of 2015) [2026] KEHC 12249 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the Plaintiff proved an offer and substantial performance, but failed to prove an unequivocal acceptance of the quoted Kshs. 6,578,000 or a binding contract at that price. However, the Defendant, through its manager with ostensible authority, initiated and benefited from the work. The justice of the case therefore warranted compensation on a quantum meruit basis, not enforcement of the full quotation.
Source excerpt
Chester Insurance Brokers Ltd v Sibed Transporters Ltd (Civil Appeal E528 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10344 (KLR) (Civ) (2 July 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court held that a broker is only an intermediary and agent of the insured, not the insurer, and cannot be made liable to indemnify the insured for losses arising under the insurance contract. The insured's remedy was against the insurer, which was not joined. The trial magistrate therefore misdirected himself in imposing liability on the broker and in allowing the counterclaim and set-off.
Source excerpt
Gabow v Omweri & another (Civil Appeal E132 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9058 (KLR) (Civ) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the Appellant did not prove that the 2nd Respondent had actual or apparent authority from the 1st Respondent to incur storage charges or that the 1st Respondent ratified those charges. The evidence showed only that the 1st Respondent asked the 2nd Respondent to repair the vehicle. That limited instruction did not create an agency relationship covering storage at the Appellant’s premises, and privity of contract equally barred enforcement of the storage arrangement against a non-party. The trial court therefore made no reversible error.
Source excerpt
Tatu v Mamra Sitacus Advocates LLP (Small Claims Appeal E258 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9170 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the Appellant did not prove that the 3rd Respondent had actual, apparent, or ratified authority to bind the Respondents. The 3rd Respondent's own assurances could not generate authority, the Turquand rule could not be used to create authority where none existed, and the burden of proof was not discharged; therefore, the Small Claims Court correctly dismissed the claim.
Source excerpt
Explore more
