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 High Court held that loss of user for a commercial matatu is a general damages claim proved on a balance of probabilities and awarded Kshs. 385,000.
Cale Infrastructure Company Ltd v Sitati & 2 others (Appeal E059, E005 & E058 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELRC 2383 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court upheld the subordinate courts on liability because the appellant failed to rebut the respondents’ evidence that employment continued beyond the alleged contract end dates and failed to prove lawful redundancy or fair termination procedure. However, it interfered with the quantum of damages where the trial courts used unsupported salary bases or awarded excessive compensation, substituting lower awards anchored on the proved contractual or gross pay and statutory entitlements.
Source excerpt
Mwaruwaga alias Mohamed Bakari v Consolbase Transfreight Logistics (Civil Appeal E370 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12607 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the appellant's sworn eyewitness evidence of being struck while lawfully crossing at a marked crossing was unrebutted, the respondent led no evidence of contributory negligence, and the trial court गलतly demanded corroboration and drew an unsustainable inference from the absence of a traffic charge. The missing decree defect had been cured before hearing, so the appeal remained competent. Liability was therefore wholly on the respondent.
Source excerpt
Omwoyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12800 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court, after re-evaluating the record as a first appellate court, held that the evidence of multiple witnesses on the armed home invasions and the appellant’s recognition was sufficient to prove robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt, and that the rape conviction on Count VIII was also supported by the complainant’s evidence despite the lack of injurious medical findings. However, Count IX was unsafe because the evidence did not sufficiently link the appellant to the rape of PW5, who in fact said he did not rape her. The consecutive sentences were upheld because the offences were s…
Source excerpt
Mulei v Nyambu (Civil Appeal E087 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12733 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The trial court erred by transferring a 50% apportionment of liability, derived from a dispute between the motorcycle rider and the Nissan driver, onto an innocent pillion passenger. The appellant was not pleaded or proved to be contributorily negligent, and the alleged helmet issue could not justify reduction because it was unpleaded, unsupported by evidence, and had no causal connection to the non-head injuries suffered. Liability was therefore 100% against the respondent. The awards for general damages and loss of earning capacity were within range and disclosed no error of principle, so t…
Source excerpt
Wij Holdings Ltd & another v Ksrunya (Civil Appeal E089 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12906 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)
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
JNK v JKN (Civil Appeal E107 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12721 (KLR) (Family) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal was only partly meritorious. The trial court correctly treated the case as one for presumption of marriage, not customary marriage, and the evidence supported a presumption of marriage based on 12 years of post-capacity cohabitation, dowry-related evidence, spouse inclusion in medical cover, and public holding out. However, the evidence did not support a finding that cruelty was proved only against the respondent; the record showed reciprocal domestic conflict and protection orders. The declaration of marriage and dissolution were therefore maintained, but the cruelty finding was n…
Source excerpt
Siba (Suing in the Capacity of the Administratix in the Estate of Mohamud Siba) v Siba & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E025 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5158 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appellate court held that the trial magistrate misapprehended the evidence and the law by treating the absence of adoption of tribunal awards as defeating their evidential value, and by accepting the respondents' location letter without interrogating the root of registration. The court found that the appellant proved the estate's root of title, that the registration in the deceased respondent's father's name was fraudulent on the evidence, and that the respondents' occupation amounted to trespass. The appeal was allowed and the appellant granted declaratory, rectification, eviction, injun…
Source excerpt
Jara v Republic (Criminal Appeal E060 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12348 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The conviction was upheld because the discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence did not create reasonable doubt: the appellant was linked to the house where the child was found, PW4 knew him as the occupant, and the complainant’s account that he locked her in the house and defiled her was sufficiently corroborated. However, the sentencing court failed to credit the period spent in remand custody, so that period had to be deducted from the sentence.
Source excerpt
Mukiti v Republic (Criminal Appeal E132 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1516 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the deceased's death and its unlawfulness were proved, the circumstantial evidence and last-seen facts formed a complete chain pointing to the appellant, the appellant's explanations were unconvincing and his defence did not address the material issues, and malice aforethought could be inferred from the strangulation. The conviction was therefore affirmed, but the sentence had to be adjusted to account for the time spent in custody under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
Explore more
