Kenya Case Law

Mukuhi v Njoroge

Mukuhi v Njoroge (Civil Miscellaneous Application E1054 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11813 (KLR) (Civ) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Miscellaneous Application E1054 of 2024

Judge

["LP Kassan"]

The Applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for extending time because the alleged administrative delay was unsupported by any documentary evidence, no certificate of delay was produced, counsel was present when the ruling was delivered, and the draft memorandum of appeal did not challenge the ruling of 22nd March 2024 but instead targeted an earlier judgment of 17th November 2023; accordingly, discretion under section 79G could not be exercised in the Applicant's favor.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to appeal
• Good and sufficient cause
• Delay in filing appeal
• Appeals from small claims court
• Draft memorandum of appeal
• Certificate of delay

Mbaya v Kamoko

Mbaya v Kamoko (Civil Appeal E071 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13112 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E071 of 2025

Judge

["DK Rono"]

The appeal succeeded partly because the trial court failed to adequately consider documentary acknowledgements and admissions proving that the respondent received Kshs. 330,000, which was an error of law. However, the appellant did not prove a contractual agreement for Kshs. 170,000 interest, and no separate basis existed for damages for breach of contract. The proper remedy was judgment for the principal sum of Kshs. 330,000 with court interest from the date of filing suit.

Source excerpt

• Appeals from small claims court
• Proof of loan advance
• Contractual interest
• Damages for breach of contract
• Court interest
• Appellate interference with factual findings

Kisingu v Mukiti & 4 others

Kisingu v Mukiti & 4 others (Commercial Case E031 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9782 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case E031 of 2024

Judge

["NIO Adagi"]

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to stay, set aside, or otherwise interfere with the Small Claims Court judgment and proceedings because no proper appeal on points of law had been shown under section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act, and the application was further incompetent for failing to identify any main application pending determination.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Stay of execution
• Setting aside interlocutory judgment
• Extension of time
• Appeals from small claims court
• Service of process

Mogo Auto Ltd v Onjira

Mogo Auto Ltd v Onjira (Civil Appeal E957 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 9082 (KLR) (Civ) (23 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E957 of 2022

Judge

["JM Nang'ea"]

The trial court mischaracterized the default judgment process. The claim included a liquidated sum of Kshs. 637,771/= and, under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the default judgment entered on 1 September 2022 operated as a final default judgment on the liquidated claim and interest. The magistrate therefore had no basis to dismiss the claim on liability. The appeal succeeds, and the default judgment is upheld as enforceable for the liquidated amount and interest.

Source excerpt

• Default judgment
• Interlocutory judgment
• Liquidated claim
• Pecuniary damages
• Burden of proof
• Appeals from small claims court

Kingo v Mulwa

Kingo v Mulwa (Civil Appeal E380 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7256 (KLR) (25 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E380 of 2024

Judge

["AN Ongeri"]

The High Court held that the appeal largely attacked factual findings made by the Small Claims Court, which it could not re-evaluate under section 38(1) except where perversity or a legal error was shown. The refusal to grant a further adjournment did not amount to a violation of fair hearing because counsel had been duly served, there had been repeated adjournments, and no compelling reason for absence was proved. The trial court was entitled to infer an oral contract for sale from the parties' conduct, two years' possession, and part-payment, and the absence of a signed document did not inv…

Source excerpt

• Right to fair hearing
• Right to counsel
• Adjournment
• Appeals from small claims court
• Oral contract for sale of motor vehicle
• Appellate interference with factual findings

JMM (A minor suing through her mother and next friend JVM v Maluki

JMM (A minor suing through her mother and next friend JVM v Maluki (Civil Appeal E311 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 7106 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E311 of 2023

Judge

["BM Musyoki"]

The appeal failed because the appellant did not lay factual basis for res ipsa loquitur: none of the witnesses saw the accident, police investigations were inconclusive, the abstract did not show the motor vehicle was to blame, and the appellant did not explain the scene or circumstances showing that the respondent's vehicle, rather than the motor cycle or another cause, was responsible. The trial court therefore committed no error of law.

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Liability
• Res ipsa loquitur
• Standard of proof
• Appeals from small claims court

Manka v Tanui (Small Claims Appeal E101 of 2025)

Manka v Tanui (Small Claims Appeal E101 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7075 (KLR) (Civ) (22 May 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Small Claims Appeal E101 of 2025

Judge

["AN Ongeri"]

The appeal succeeded because the trial court erred on points of law: it failed to evaluate the respondent's admissions and electronic messages on the debt, wrongly treated an unrelated tenancy arrangement as capable of defeating a personal debt, and misapplied the evidential burden on ownership of the household goods. The High Court therefore set aside the Small Claims Court judgment and entered judgment for the appellant.

Source excerpt

• Appeals from small claims court
• Admissions in evidence
• Electronic evidence/whatsapp messages
• Privity of contract
• Burden of proof
• Ownership of household goods

Power Twins Limited v Finton Logistics Limited

Power Twins Limited v Finton Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Application E1143 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6021 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application E1143 of 2025

The Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and did not provide cogent evidence of diligent follow-up on proceedings. The multiplicity of defective applications undermined the explanation for delay. The application for stay of execution was also unmerited as there was no competent appeal before the court and substantial loss was not demonstrated.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to appeal
• Stay of execution
• Appeals from small claims court

Mugambi v Meru Highlands Dairy Limited

Mugambi v Meru Highlands Dairy Limited (Civil Appeal E111 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 5804 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E111 of 2023

The High Court allowed an appeal from the Small Claims Court, set aside a debt judgment against an employee, and dismissed the suit for lack of proof.

• Jurisdiction
• Burden of proof
• Fiduciary duty
• Counterclaim
• Appeals from small claims court
• Small-claims-court-appeal

Oyange v Nyaboke t/a Lister Auctioneers & another

Oyange v Nyaboke t/a Lister Auctioneers & another (Civil Appeal E202 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5543 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Appeal E202 of 2025

The High Court allowed an appeal from the Small Claims Court, holding that an auctioneer failed to exercise due diligence before sale of a vehicle later repossessed by the true owner.

• Auctioneer liability
• Refund of purchase price
• Due diligence
• Appeals from small claims court
• Auctioneer-liability
• Due-diligence