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 declined to extend time for certification and leave to appeal, holding the omnibus motion was procedurally defective and the delay inadequately explained.
In re Estate of Muya (Deceased) (Succession Cause 68 of 1985) [2026] KEHC 12876 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the estate had been fully distributed upon confirmation of grant in 1991, no ongoing proceedings existed to stay, the applicant offered no explanation for the 35-year delay, the draft memorandum did not disclose prima facie arguable grounds for appellate consideration, and no security for due performance was proposed. Leave to appeal and stay were therefore unavailable.
Source excerpt
Apollo Muinde & Partners Advocates v National Land Commission (Miscellaneous Application E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5335 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant failed to justify the four-month delay and therefore did not satisfy the threshold for the court’s equitable discretion to enlarge time or grant leave to appeal. The court also found that the intended appeal lacked arguability because the court had discretion, after finding error in principle in the taxation reference, to re-tax the bill itself where justice required. The application was dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Family Bank Ltd v Gachege & another (Civil Appeal E283 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13073 (KLR) (10 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the central issue was locus standi of the 1st Respondent as a co-administratrix suing in the presence of another co-administrator, and that the matter was arguable. On the court’s reading of Order 24 Rule 5 and Order 43 Rule 1, leave to appeal was not required in the circumstances. To preserve the subject matter and allow the appeal to be tested properly, further proceedings in the subordinate court were stayed pending determination of the appeal.
Source excerpt
M'Mbifwa v Imbwenya & 6 others (Civil Application E067 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1631 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant had promptly pursued an appeal process through a leave application in the High Court, the delay was less than one year and therefore not inordinate, and the respondents showed no prejudice; extension of time was therefore justified.
Source excerpt
Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company v Capture Solutions Limited (Civil Application E136 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1522 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
Although the single Judge misunderstood the exact procedural relief sought, the application was still incompetent because the applicant had already pursued successive challenges arising from the same arbitral award and High Court judgment. Those earlier rulings, taken together, finally resolved the applicant’s inability to obtain appellate intervention, and the fresh motion was an attempt to relitigate the same dispute. The Court therefore held that res judicata and abuse of process defeated the reference, making extension of time unnecessary.
Source excerpt
Cosican Engineering Works Limited v Housing Finance Co-operation Limited & another (Civil Appeal E124 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12130 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal arose from objection proceedings under Order 22 Rules 51 to 55, which are not among the orders appealable as of right under section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Because the appellant did not seek or obtain leave to appeal, the court lacked jurisdiction; the appeal was therefore incompetent and had to be struck out without reaching the merits.
Source excerpt
Progressive Credit Ltd v Kamau & another (Civil Appeal E087 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12557 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal was struck out because it was filed without leave, yet an appeal from a ruling on a preliminary objection is not an appeal as of right under section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of leave, the appeal was incompetent and the court had no jurisdiction to determine its merits.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Opapo (Deceased) (Succession Appeal E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12154 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court held that the appeal was competent as of right under section 50(1) of the Law of Succession Act, that the magistrate erred in treating the revocation application as an impermissible review of a superior court decision, and that the record disclosed multiple section 76 defects: concealment of a contested claim, untrue allegations supporting the grant, ex parte confirmation contrary to an existing viva voce direction, and distribution of the estate without beneficiary participation. The grant and certificate of confirmation were therefore liable to revocation and annulment.
Source excerpt
Kihuri & 2 others v Kabira & 2 others (Civil Application E051 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1568 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The applicants sufficiently explained the delay by showing that they acted under the then-prevailing view that leave to appeal was required, promptly withdrew that application after the Supreme Court clarified the law, and filed the extension motion within a reasonable period thereafter. The delay was not inordinate, the intended appeal was not frivolous, and no prejudice to the respondents was demonstrated; time was therefore extended in the court’s discretion under rule 4.
Source excerpt
Explore more
