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 upheld the President’s power to create an advisory GBV taskforce, found no unconstitutional usurpation of commission functions, and dismissed the petition.
The High Court struck out the petition and motion, finding the dispute had not exhausted the Societies Act appeal process and that the petitioners lacked locus standi.
Towett alias Seiyo v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Interior and National Administration & another (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12082 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the designation of Sogoo as headquarters of Narok Amalo Sub-County was unconstitutional because the Respondents failed to prove meaningful, effective and inclusive public participation. The uncontroverted evidence showed only a selective meeting outside the affected area, no adequate public notice, and no demonstration that resident views were considered. That failure breached Articles 10, 35, 47 and 232, justifying quashing of the Gazette Notice and a fresh constitutionally compliant participation process.
Source excerpt
Otieno & 25 others v County Government of Homa Bay & another (Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2183 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application was dismissed because the Court found that it had already dealt with the enforcement issue concerning the same PSC decision, rendering the matter res judicata and the Court functus officio; consequently, there was no basis to grant leave to file the intended enforcement application out of time.
Source excerpt
Sogomo v Judicial Service Commission (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E268 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2178 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that it had jurisdiction because the dispute arose from an employment relationship and involved constitutional and administrative law questions ancillary to that relationship. The doctrine of exhaustion did not bar the petition because section 14 of the Access to Information Act was not mandatory in the circumstances and the petition raised issues fit for constitutional adjudication. On the merits, the Petitioner failed to prove legitimate expectation, failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and failed to show grounds for certiorari, reconsideration, or damage…
Source excerpt
Nduta v Ombasa, Acting County Secretary Kisii County Government & 3 others (Cause E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2166 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)
The objections failed because the Public Service Commission proceedings were not a suit before a competent court and therefore could not sustain res judicata, and because section 88(1) of the Public Service Commission Act uses the word 'may', making review discretionary rather than mandatory for exhaustion purposes; the claim therefore remained properly before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
Source excerpt
Mutheu v Wentzel & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E112 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4643 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case based on title, alleged trespass, loss, and ongoing interference with possession; the threatened harm could not be adequately compensated by damages and the balance of convenience required preservation of the suit property. The Defendants’ stay application failed because the judicial review proceedings challenged jurisdiction in a separate forum and did not determine the substantive issues of ownership or trespass, so a stay would only delay justice and amount to an abuse of process.
Source excerpt
Okoiti & 2 others v Kenya Ports Authority & 5 others (Petition E009 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8350 (KLR) (15 June 2026) (Ruling)
The petition was struck out because the complaints were ordinary procurement grievances disguised as constitutional claims. The petitioners had available statutory avenues under the PPADA and the Fair Administrative Action Act, including complaint to the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority and, if necessary, judicial review. The court held that the petitioners qualified as candidates by obtaining the tender documents, that the Authority could deal with their complaints, and that the petition improperly bypassed those mechanisms. The court also treated the filing as an abuse of process, es…
Source excerpt
Ngoge t/a OP Ngoge & Associates Advocates v Advocates Disciplinary Committee Tribunal & 3 others (Petition E191 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 9677 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (10 June 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that it had jurisdiction notwithstanding the exhaustion objection because the petition attacked the legality of the disciplinary process itself, not just its merits. The petitioner proved a constitutional violation because the Tribunal record did not show service of the hearing notice for 6th September 2021, yet it proceeded in his absence and closed his case, thereby denying him a fair hearing and fair administrative action. The Court also found a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the participation of a Tribunal member who was in ongoing adversarial litigation relat…
Source excerpt
Krystalline Salt Limited & 3 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Mining and Petroleum & another (Civil Appeal E044 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1000 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the Mining Act, 2016 regulates salt extraction as mining because salt is expressly included in the First Schedule and falls within the statutory definition of mineral; the Act does not extinguish the appellants' leasehold interests or property rights in the land, but only subjects their salt-extraction activities to the new regulatory framework. Since the appellants retained the right to extract salt, no unconstitutional deprivation under Article 40 occurred, and the appeal failed. The Court also accepted that the appellants cannot lawfully be required to pay royalties twi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
