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 appeal partly succeeded. The court set aside unpleaded findings on fraud and estate ownership, but upheld dismissal of the suit and the costs order.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, awarding special damages for repair, assessor and tracing costs, while upholding the Small Claims Court costs award.
The High Court allowed the appeal by Car & General, finding the logbook presumption of ownership rebuts by evidence of prior sale and no basis for vicarious liability.
The High Court issued interim burial-preservation orders in a dispute over control of the deceased’s funeral arrangements, while reserving the widow-status question for later determination.
Siocha v Hashimweyezu (Legal Representative of the Estate of John Mbumba (Deceased) (Civil Appeal E195 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13090 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to prove negligence and failed to prove causation between the accident and the deceased’s death. The trial court also erred in awarding dependency damages to the deceased’s brother, who is not a dependant under section 4(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act. The High Court therefore set aside the subordinate court judgment and dismissed the suit.
Source excerpt
Royal Media Services Ltd v Independent Elections & Boundaries Commission & 3 others (Civil Appeal 239 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1537 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant failed to prove a valid and enforceable contract, and the alleged arrangement was unlawful because it did not comply with mandatory procurement requirements under the Public Procurement and Disposal Act, 2005. Because the transaction was tainted with illegality, neither enforcement nor restitutionary recovery could lie. The claim against the 4th respondent was also statute-barred under section 3(2) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act, and no personal liability attached to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The trial court therefore committed no reversible error.
Source excerpt
Johmat Distributors Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya (Application E040 of 2025) [2026] KESC 58 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court held that three questions were improperly raised for the first time on review and that the remaining issues did not meet the constitutional threshold for certification because they were either fact-bound, speculative, settled in law, or merely complaints about the application of settled principles to the applicant’s specific dispute. The Originating Motion therefore lacked merit and certification was rightly refused.
Source excerpt
Mwaura v Twinriver 1 Estate (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E305 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2244 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant proved that his casual employment converted to a term contract and thus established entitlement in principle to off-duty compensation, but he did not prove the specific pleaded sum of Kshs. 73,274.00. Since the claim was for a particular quantified amount, failure to prove that amount justified dismissal of that head of claim. The trial court also properly exercised its discretion on costs because success at trial was divided, so the order that each party bear its own costs was upheld. The appeal therefore failed.
Source excerpt
Mugambi & another v Wangai (Civil Appeal 64 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1616 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the appellant’s cause of action for advocate’s fees accrued on 8 February 2010 when the retainer ended, that the running of time was not suspended by earlier proceedings or by withdrawal of prior bills of costs, and that the 20 June 2016 bill was therefore filed outside the six-year statutory period. The Court also found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s costs order because the respondent succeeded on the dispositive limitation issue.
Source excerpt
Onunga v African Gas and Oil Company Ltd & 4 others (Land Case Petition E013 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5072 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
Leave to withdraw was granted because the petition was an unresolved public interest matter, but no respondent or other person sought to carry it forward and the petitioner had shown no bad faith. The withdrawal therefore did not warrant refusal. Its juridical effect was limited to ending the current proceeding without determining the merits or validating the disputed licence. Costs were awarded against the petitioner only in favour of the 1st Respondent because that respondent had incurred real expense in answering the petition, while the public respondents did not seek costs on the withdraw…
Source excerpt
Explore more
