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 Court of Appeal held that the High Court went beyond rectification under section 74 by effectively reopening and revoking confirmed grants without an application under section 76.
Kingiri v Surtech Ltd & another (Appeal E030 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2440 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court allowed the appeal, held that non-payment of salary and failure to regularize the employment relationship amounted to constructive unfair dismissal, and awarded compensation and notice pay.
Mochanga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1620 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court independently re-evaluated the evidence and found that malice aforethought was proved beyond reasonable doubt because the appellant deliberately armed himself with a spear, targeted the deceased, and inflicted a fatal neck injury after a family dispute. The Court held that the facts supported murder, not manslaughter, and found the 30-year sentence justified after considering the appellant’s conduct, bad character, lack of remorse, and the Muruatetu sentencing factors.
Source excerpt
Kombo alias Dady v Republic (Criminal Appeal E111 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12626 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the prosecution proved robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt: PW1’s direct evidence showed a robbery by three men, violent assault, and theft of motorcycle, phone and cash; medical evidence confirmed severe injuries amounting to maim; and PW1 credibly recognized the Appellant, a neighbor, during a face-to-face encounter illuminated by motorcycle lights, security lights, and moonlight. The absence of the Appellant's name in the first report was explained by the complainant’s inability to speak after the assault, and the remaining objections—missing witness, no…
Source excerpt
Muthoni & 8 others v Jane & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4957 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The appeal failed because the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondents' quarrying or blasting caused the alleged damage. The photographs were undated, the quotation was unclear, no expert evidence established causation or extent of loss, and the appellants therefore did not discharge the burden under the Evidence Act. The trial magistrate was not in error, and both the application and appeal were dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Peter v Republic (Criminal Appeal E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12013 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The conviction was upheld because the appellant had pleaded guilty and the record, including CCTV evidence and medical evidence, supported the charges. However, the consecutive sentencing was unjustified on the facts because the offences arose from the same transaction, and the trial court also failed to account for time spent in custody, so the sentence order had to be revised to concurrent terms with credit for custody time.
Source excerpt
Karani v Muriithi (Civil Appeal E028 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 11995 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the record showed that the deceased was survived by two equally ranked beneficiaries, but the petitioner and later administrator deliberately omitted the appellant's mother and the appellant from the succession process. That concealment rendered the grant and subsequent dealings defective, and the succession court retained jurisdiction to revoke the grant notwithstanding subdivision or transfer of the estate property. The trial court therefore erred in striking out the application as futile.
Source excerpt
Mukabi & another (Suing as legal representatives of Stephen Kiruthi Mukabi – Deceased) v Muiru (Civil Appeal E051 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12642 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the deceased’s negligence claim survived under section 2(1) of the Law Reform Act, the substitution application had been filed within one year so the suit had not abated under Order 24 rule 3(2), and the trial court wrongly refused to deliver judgment on a concluded trial; the proper remedy was to set aside the ruling and remit the matter for judgment on the existing record.
Source excerpt
Ngeno v Republic (Criminal Appeal E008 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12086 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the Forest (Charcoal) Rules, 2009 did not confer legal authority to forfeit the appellant's vehicle, and there was no evidence that the appellant participated in, authorized, or knowingly permitted the offence. The trial court therefore acted without jurisdiction and unlawfully deprived the appellant of property.
Source excerpt
Kenya Wildlife Service v Kinyua (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate Pius Kinyua Gichunki) (Civil Appeal 40 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 11417 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the substance of the dispute was compensation for crop damage allegedly caused by wildlife, a matter governed by Section 25 of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013. The statutory compensation mechanism had to be invoked and exhausted before the ordinary court could assume jurisdiction. Because that process was not pursued, the trial court lacked jurisdiction and its proceedings and judgment were a nullity.
Source excerpt
Explore more
