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
Keya v Crescent Tech Ltd (Appeal E154 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2435 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed an appeal challenging a redundancy-based termination, finding notice, consultation, and no proved discrimination.
Omondi & another v Kenya Chemical Workers Union & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E214 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2418 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the respondents discriminated against the petitioners by excluding them from union activities because they had sued the union. The exclusion was unjustified and amounted to retaliation for exercising the right of access to justice and participation in union affairs. However, most of the governance and procurement complaints were treated as internal union matters or claims that failed for want of proper legal threshold or exhaustion of the prescribed mechanisms. Relief was therefore limited to outstanding allowances, access to union member social media groups if still memb…
Source excerpt
Genga v Kenya Vehicle Manufacturers Ltd (Appeal E281 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 2385 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Appellant voluntarily signed a piece rate contract and the evidence, including payslips and the recommendation letter, showed a need-based task engagement rather than permanent employment. He did not prove a termination letter, notice, or any employer act terminating the relationship. Since the Appellant failed to establish termination or unfairness on a balance of probabilities, the trial court was correct to dismiss the claim and deny reliefs.
Source excerpt
Muiu v National Police Service Commission & 2 others (Petition E393 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11989 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the petition was pleaded with sufficient precision and that the respondents acted unlawfully by stopping the petitioner’s salary and medical cover before, and outside, the constitutional removal process under Article 251. The petitioner remained in office because no tribunal was appointed and he was never lawfully removed. The unilateral stoppage of remuneration without notice, hearing, or lawful authority violated his rights under Articles 28 and 47, and also infringed the constitutional protection accorded to commissioners’ remuneration under Article 250(7) and (8).
Source excerpt
Manyeki v Mhasibu MWDT Sacco Society Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E452 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 2347 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the transfer to Accounts was a lawful exercise of managerial prerogative and not an unfair labour practice; the dismissal had a valid substantive basis because the claimant continued to disobey a lawful instruction, but it was procedurally unfair because disciplinary action was initiated before her internal appeal was determined. Sexual harassment was not proved on a balance of probabilities. However, the claimant did prove harassment by management that violated her dignity, justifying a limited award of general damages. Relief was therefore restricted to compensation for…
Source excerpt
MNC (A minor suing through his father and next friend NNC) v Board of Management, Tenges Boys High School, Kabarnet & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E004 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11438 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The respondents' case was undefended and the petitioner's affidavit evidence stood admitted. On the undisputed facts, the 2nd respondent unlawfully arrested the minor, took him to police custody, abandoned him there, and constructively expelled him from school without following the mandatory statutory disciplinary process. That conduct violated the petitioner's rights, especially the child's best interests principle, the right to education, and fair administrative action. The principal acted ultra vires and personally in the award of aggravated and exemplary damages.
Source excerpt
Olwa v Republic (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E022 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11293 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because robbery with violence under section 296(2) carries death as the minimum and only prescribed sentence, and the presidential commutation to life imprisonment was a lawful exercise of the power of mercy. The court held that life imprisonment had not been shown to be unconstitutional, degrading, inhuman, or discriminatory, and therefore there was no basis to review the sentence.
Source excerpt
Karani & another v Attorney General & another (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11079 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the 1st Petitioner was a Kenyan citizen by birth because he was born in Kenya to a Kenyan mother, and the 2nd Petitioner was presumed a citizen by birth because she was found abandoned in Kenya as a baby with unknown parentage. The Respondents' continued retention of their identity cards and birth certificates, refusal to issue passports, and failure to conclude the process or give reasons were unjustified, discriminatory, and procedurally unfair. Those acts violated Articles 12(1)(b), 28, 39, and 47 of the Constitution, warranting declarations, mandamus, and damages.
Source excerpt
Buchichi v University of Nairobi (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E503 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2086 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the claimant’s appointment was made by the University of Nairobi for a fixed term and was not shown to be pegged to the tenure of the Chair of Council. The alleged resignation or revocation of the Chair did not frustrate the contract. The respondent terminated the claimant abruptly on an incorrect assumption, without a disciplinary hearing and without valid reasons. The termination was therefore unfair and unjustified, entitling the claimant to compensation and contractual relief.
Source excerpt
Matindi v National Assembly & 4 others (Petition E006 of 2025) [2026] KESC 56 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Supreme Court held that Legal Notice No. 15 of 2021 was an administrative instrument issued under valid statutory delegation in section 13(2) of the Income Tax Act, not a statutory instrument of legislative character requiring public participation under the Statutory Instruments Act. Parliament’s oversight requirement under section 13(3) was met when the notice was tabled and adopted. The appellant also failed to prove unlawful discrimination. The appeal therefore failed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
