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 Tribunal entered judgment on admission for the claimant, holding the respondent was a member of the society and limiting recovery to Kshs. 45,000,000 under section 44A.
Son Hardware Ltd v Arumba Ltd & another (Commercial Case E004 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 12753 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Plaintiff's suit was not struck out because it raised triable issues, but it was subject to sub judice due to the pending ELC No. 10 of 2021, so the court stayed it for nine months. The 2nd Defendant's attempt to file a defence to the 1st Defendant's purported counterclaim out of time failed because a counterclaim cannot properly be used against a co-defendant; the correct procedure is Order 1 Rule 24. The Plaintiff's bid for strike out and judgment on admission failed because the alleged admissions were not clear, unequivocal, or directed as admissions of liability by the 1st Defendant.
Source excerpt
Timsales Limited v Silpack Industries Limited (Civil Case E389 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12823 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Respondent raised bona fide triable issues on the quality and quantity of goods supplied, the contractual basis for the claimed interest, and the legal significance of the post-dated cheques and fire incident. Those disputes required a full trial. The materials relied on by the Applicant did not amount to a clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission of the debt, so neither summary judgment nor judgment on admission could issue.
Source excerpt
Stichting Rabobank Foundation v Mwangi & another (Civil Appeal E090 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1550 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court erred by treating non-registration under section 974 of the Companies Act as automatically fatal to the appellant's locus standi and by determining at preliminary stage a contested factual question—whether the appellant was carrying on business in Kenya—without evidence. Section 974 does not, by express language or necessary implication, bar an unregistered foreign company from suing in Kenya; the suit was therefore wrongly struck out.
Source excerpt
Hassan v Capricorn Logistics Kenya Ltd & another (Cause E519 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2265 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court found a clear admission by the Respondent acknowledging the KES 2,000,000 share contribution and promising refund within 30 days, which was not paid. Judgment on admission was therefore entered for that sum with interest from filing. However, the evidence did not establish an intention by the Respondent to remove or dissipate assets from Kenya, so the strict threshold for a Mareva injunction was not met. Instead, to secure the admitted claim, the court ordered the Respondent to deposit KES 2,000,000 in court within 14 days pending determination of the suit or further orders.
Source excerpt
Pernod Ricard Kenya Ltd v Brooklyn Brewniverse Ltd & another (Commercial Suit E327 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11671 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)
The 2nd defendant’s emailed statement that he would deposit Kshs. 10,000,000 immediately was a clear, unconditional, and unequivocal admission sufficient to support judgment on admission against the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant was not struck out because the pleadings and correspondence raised bona fide triable issues on his personal involvement and possible alter ego role, making removal at the interlocutory stage premature.
Source excerpt
Frontier Haulage & Construction Company Ltd v Consolidated (MBS) Ltd & another (Civil Suit 6 of 2014) [2026] KEHC 11403 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved that the 1st Defendant, as bailee for reward, failed to return all goods entrusted to it and therefore breached the bailment contract and duty of care. The Plaintiff also proved that the 2nd Defendant, which actually possessed and controlled the goods, was a sub-bailee owing duties to the Plaintiff and breached them by failing to safeguard and account for the bitumen and by unlawfully extracting excess rent. The Plaintiff strictly proved the balance of special damages at Kshs. 6,246,378.20, while its claims for general damages and loss of profits failed for want of proof.…
Source excerpt
King’inya & Sons Distributors Company Ltd v Droppers Distributors Ltd (Civil Appeal E200 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 11419 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The trial court wrongly treated the application as an attempt to introduce an unpleaded sum and to vary a consent judgment, when in fact the complaint was that a KShs. 30,000 payment had been deducted twice in the computation of the admitted debt. That was an apparent computational error falling within the Small Claims Court’s statutory review jurisdiction under section 41 and rule 29; therefore, the court was not functus officio and should have reviewed the judgment to reflect KShs. 110,000.
Source excerpt
Nyokabi & another v Kamau (Tribunal Case 023 of 2026) [2026] KECOPT 298 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Respondent admitted borrowing the loans and defaulting, but did not expressly admit owing the Claimants Kshs. 1,034,606.61. Because the claimed sum and its composition remained disputed, there was no clear, unambiguous admission capable of sustaining judgment on admission. The application therefore failed and the matter had to proceed to trial.
Source excerpt
Karogo v Orient Sacco Society Ltd (Tribunal Case E274 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 296 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Tribunal held that the Respondent admitted owing the Claimant the refunded savings amount during hearing, there was no proven liability on the Claimant's part, and the dispute over instalments did not defeat the admitted debt. Judgment was therefore entered for the Claimant on admission for the admitted sum, with costs and interest from the date of filing suit, and a 30-day stay of execution was granted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
