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
Otieno v Nyakongo (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E023 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5365 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed an injunction and stay application as a collateral attempt to halt execution of an existing eviction decree, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Yego & 10 others v Siteinei & 5 others (Petition E023 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 13182 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court held it was functus officio after adopting an arbitral award and lacked jurisdiction to revisit it. The stay application failed with the main relief.
Mokami v Nyamohanga (Environment and Land Case E062 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 766 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that because it had already delivered a final judgment on 28 May 2026 which remained unchallenged by appeal or contrary order, it was functus officio and lacked authority to reopen the case, admit fresh evidence, or alter the outcome. The application was therefore without merit and had to fail.
Source excerpt
Nairobi Beauty World Limited & 2 others v Anti-Counterfeit Authority & 3 others (Petition E012 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13081 (KLR) (25 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the review application, but the applicants failed to satisfy the threshold for review. The alleged contradiction between the judgment's reasoning and its orders was not an obvious error on the face of the record, the orders in HCCOMM No. E604 of 2023 did not require release of the goods from the Anti-Counterfeit Authority's custody, storage charges and other new reliefs were not pleaded in the petition, and the locus standi complaint amounted to an appeal rather than a proper review. The application was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
Moyale Mall Limited & 2 others v Ali & 18 others (Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5336 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held it was functus officio as to merits but retained limited power to correct the record and make orders necessary to give practical effect to the judgment. It allowed correction of the cause title and lease count under section 99, clarified the scope of the remittal, declined to adjudicate the separate Tribunal ruling of 10 June 2026, declined to pronounce on the Tribunal’s competence in that separate matter, and granted limited consequential relief restoring positions after the impugned interim orders were set aside. It also ordered the remitted references to be heard by a differ…
Source excerpt
Mbati v Republic (Criminal Revision E228 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 13020 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the High Court’s revision jurisdiction is limited to legality, correctness, and propriety under the Criminal Procedure Code, and no appeal or illegality in sentence was shown. Compensation to the victim’s family did not amount to new compelling evidence or a ground for resentencing, and the court had become functus officio on sentence.
Source excerpt
Mbugua v Mugada (Commercial Case E4756 of 2025) [2026] SCC 226 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant did not demonstrate any statutory ground for review. His complaints about ownership of the motor vehicle, the effect of registration, the alleged payment of Kshs.500,000, and the concepts of detinue and conversion all required re-evaluation of evidence and therefore could not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The proper remedy, if he believed the court erred in law or fact, was appeal, not review. Because the review failed, there was no basis for stay of execution or for setting aside and substituting the judgment.
Source excerpt
Manyala & 3 others (Suing as Members of Kibuye Market Traders) v City Manager, County Government of Kenya & 4 others (Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5327 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The consent of 31 July 2025 compromised only the two interlocutory applications, not the substantive petition, so the court was not functus officio in relation to the petition. The proposed amendment was allowed in principle because it was connected to the original dispute and could be answered by the Respondents, but leave was limited because the proposed pleading lacked particulars required for a proper constitutional claim. Costs were awarded against the Petitioners because the application was necessary due to their incomplete pleading.
Source excerpt
Mutunga v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E046 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13054 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the repeated sentence review/revision request because the applicant was effectively seeking the court to revisit its own final sentence decision after the court had already declared itself functus officio, and section 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred revision where an appeal lay; the repetitive filings also amounted to abuse of process.
Source excerpt
Bosire v Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) & 3 others (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E013 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2428 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the applicants did not demonstrate any new evidence, any error apparent on the face of the record, or any sufficient reason to reopen the ruling of 30 January 2026. Their complaints attacked the merits of the earlier decision and therefore amounted to a disguised appeal. The court also found no basis to disturb the earlier ruling and treated the application as an abuse of process.
Source excerpt
Explore more
