Esheria Kenya Case Law
Sign in
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Kenya Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Kenya case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Kenya decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 817 (KLR)

Bwana v Al-Kamar Trading Company Limited

Bwana v Al-Kamar Trading Company Limited (Civil Case E757 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 817 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Civil Case E757 of 2025
Judge
["EM Mwamuye"]

The court found that although service was disputed and not conclusively proved, the dispute need not be finally resolved because the court retained discretion under Order 10 Rule 11 to set aside the default judgments. The Defendant moved promptly after learning of execution, its draft defence raised a bona fide triable issue on liability and contributory negligence, and justice was better served by reopening the suit on terms. The judgments were therefore set aside subject to security of KShs. 400,000, with the Defendant required to file its defence within 14 days.

Source excerpt

  • Setting aside default judgment
  • Service of summons on a corporation
  • Triable issues
  • Contributory negligence
  • Security for setting aside orders
  • Costs
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 821 (KLR)

Owuor (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Owuor Otieno – Deceased) v H Young & Company (EA) Ltd & 3 others

Owuor (Suing as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Owuor Otieno – Deceased) v H Young & Company (EA) Ltd & 3 others (Civil Case 592 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 821 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Civil Case 592 of 2019
Judge
["EM Mwamuye"]

The application failed because, although there was documentary material raising questions about ownership of the prime mover and trailer, the Applicant’s own documents showed that the relevant ownership dispute and the possible involvement of Motrex Limited and Cebit Cargo Limited were known by July and August 2024, yet the Originating Summons for leave was not filed until 20 January 2026. The Applicant therefore did not satisfy the temporal and substantive conditions required by sections 27, 28 and 30 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and the court had no jurisdiction to defeat the intended…

Source excerpt

  • Extension of time under sections 27, 28 and 30 of the limitation of actions act
  • Statute-barred negligence claim
  • Identification of proper defendant and vehicle ownership
  • Leave to file amended plaint out of time
  • Costs in interlocutory applications
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 816 (KLR)

Njehia v Royal Autoworld International Limited & another

Njehia v Royal Autoworld International Limited & another (Civil Case E1154 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 816 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Civil Case E1154 of 2023
Judge
["EM Mwamuye"]

The Court found that the Plaintiff did not prove fraud, forgery, or conspiracy, and the 1st Defendant only received the KShs.450,000 contractually due. However, the 2nd Defendant admitted receiving KShs.1,200,000 from the sale of the vehicle and failed to prove lawful deductions of KShs.100,000 brokerage and KShs.250,000 alleged set-off, so he was liable to account for KShs.350,000, together with interest.

Source excerpt

  • Motor vehicle sale and disposal
  • Authority to sell property
  • Fraud and forgery
  • Account for sale proceeds
  • Burden and standard of proof
  • Damages and interest
Read case analysis
Employment and labour relations [2026] KEMC 800 (KLR)

Koech v Mara Multi Farming

Koech v Mara Multi Farming (Civil Suit 333 of 2015) [2026] KEMC 800 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Civil Suit 333 of 2015
Judge
["LA Mumassabba"]

The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he was injured in the course of employment by machinery under the control of the Defendant's servant or agent, the Defendant adduced no rebuttal evidence, and negligence could properly be inferred. The Defendant was therefore held 100% liable. On quantum, the court awarded Kshs.2,500,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities and Kshs.750,000 as a global award for loss of earning capacity, while limiting special damages to the Kshs.8,000 strictly proved by receipt.

Source excerpt

  • Workplace accident
  • Employer negligence
  • Vicarious liability
  • Res ipsa loquitur
  • Traumatic amputation
  • General damages
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 774 (KLR)

Longel v City Star Shuttle

Longel v City Star Shuttle (Civil Case E1455 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 774 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Civil Case E1455 of 2026
Judge
["LA Mumassabba"]

The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant’s driver negligently caused the collision. The unchallenged assessment report and supporting evidence established that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a total loss with a pre-accident value of Kshs.1,400,000 and salvage value of Kshs.255,000, and the pleaded consequential expenses were sufficiently proved. The Court therefore awarded the net special damages proved, not the higher arithmetically inconsistent total pleaded in submissions.

Source excerpt

  • Negligence
  • Vicarious liability
  • Special damages
  • Total loss valuation
  • Proof of damages
  • Interest on judgment
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12767 (KLR)

Flying Japan Ltd v Ombwende Engineering Works Ltd & another

Flying Japan Ltd v Ombwende Engineering Works Ltd & another (Civil Appeal E050 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12767 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E050 of 2025
Judge
["RN Nyakundi"]

The trial court erred by failing to address the pleaded loss of user claim. The claim was properly before the court, but loss of user is a special damage claim limited to the reasonable repair period and proved net loss. On the evidence, the reasonable period was 10 days and the proved net daily loss was Kshs 3,000, yielding Kshs 30,000. The appellate court therefore varied the judgment to add that sum rather than remit the matter.

Source excerpt

  • First appeal
  • Loss of user
  • Special damages
  • Pleading and proof
  • Appellate interference with omission
  • Quantum assessment
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12906 (KLR)

Wij Holdings Ltd & another v Ksrunya

Wij Holdings Ltd & another v Ksrunya (Civil Appeal E089 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12906 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E089 of 2024
Judge
["HM Nyaga"]

The appellants adduced no evidence to rebut the respondent’s proof of the accident and negligence, so the trial court’s finding of 100% liability stood. On quantum, the trial court’s award of Kshs. 750,000 for pain and suffering was within the range of comparable awards for a pelvic fracture and related injuries, and there was no basis for appellate interference. Special damages were also unchallenged.

Source excerpt

  • First appellate review
  • Burden of proof
  • Liability in negligence
  • Quantum of damages
  • Special damages
  • General damages
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12418 (KLR)

Simba Coach Company Limited v Omia

Simba Coach Company Limited v Omia (Civil Appeal E054 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12418 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E054 of 2025
Judge
["AK Ithuku"]

The trial magistrate failed to consider the appellant's submissions and the key comparator cited on quantum, thereby applying a wrong principle. Reassessing the evidence and comparable awards, the appellate court found that the injuries proved were a closed fracture of the left proximal humerus with soft tissue injury and unrebutted residual difficulty, so Kshs. 750,000 was excessive. General damages were reduced to Kshs. 600,000, while special damages, costs of suit, and interest remained undisturbed.

Source excerpt

  • Quantum of damages
  • Assessment of general damages
  • First appellate court review
  • Comparable awards
  • Vicarious liability
  • Special damages
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEMC 419 (KLR)

Motatiro v Chacha

Motatiro v Chacha (Civil Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 419 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Civil Case E002 of 2026
Judge
["JP Nandi"]

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove any fracture or permanent disability because no X-ray film, radiology report, or treatment record supported that claim. The court therefore treated the injuries as severe soft tissue injuries only. Applying comparable authorities and the defendant’s evidence, the court assessed general damages at Kshs. 500,000, awarded Kshs. 550 as strictly proved special damages, and applied the agreed 80:20 liability ratio to reach a final award of Kshs. 400,550.

Source excerpt

  • Assessment of general damages
  • Special damages proof
  • Liability by consent
  • Soft tissue injuries
  • Failure to prove fracture
  • Contribution/apportionment
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12090 (KLR)

Waweru & another v Attorney General & 2 others

Waweru & another v Attorney General & 2 others (Civil Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12090 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Case E005 of 2025
Judge
["PJO Otieno"]

The preliminary objection was competent because the relevant dates were uncontested on the face of the pleadings and public record. On those admitted facts, the malicious prosecution claim accrued on 28/02/2024 and the twelve-month limitation period expired on 28/02/2025. The plaint, filed on 22/09/2025, was therefore out of time. The related tort claim for vehicle damage was also time-barred under either accrual date advanced. The suit was statute-barred, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief, and it had to be struck out.

Source excerpt

  • Preliminary objection
  • Statutory limitation against public authorities
  • Malicious prosecution
  • Unlawful detention of motor vehicle
  • Accrual of cause of action
  • Jurisdiction
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.