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.
Urgent Cargo Logistics Limited v Commissioner for Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal E1489 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 321 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Appellant failed to produce sufficient record evidence that it submitted the bond cancellation requests on time; therefore, the claim that the Respondent misplaced the documents was unproven, the Appellant did not discharge its statutory burden of proof, and the Respondent's refusal to waive the interest and penalties was justified.
Source excerpt
Kangogo v County Government Workers Union (K) & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E026 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2427 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Petition failed because the Court found that the election date was lawfully rescheduled by the union’s competent organ with proper notice, the Petitioner had notice of the revised date when she expressed interest, no legitimate expectation arose, the Kshs. 3,000,000 nomination fee had been validly adopted by the union’s delegates, and the personal-details requirement in nomination forms was a reasonable and justifiable limitation. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the union’s constitutionally protected electoral autonomy and dismissed the Petition.
Source excerpt
Ndoto v Administration Police Service & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E127 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2419 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that it could not determine non-exhaustion because the respondents did not disclose the internal mechanism said to exist, but it found the petitioner had not been promoted to Corporal and was erroneously sent to a Corporal-to-Sergeant course. The recall was a timely correction of a genuine administrative error, not arbitrary or unfair administrative action. No legitimate expectation could arise from a mistake the petitioner knew or ought to have known about. The petition therefore lacked merit, but the court directed the respondents to facilitate the petitioner with the correct…
Source excerpt
Namayi v Public Service Commission & 3 others (Constitutional Petition E217 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2425 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the petitioner knew he had been directed to resume duty, nonetheless accepted and continued under an independent county contract without the employer’s approval, and therefore deserted his employment. Because he was given a disciplinary process and the court found no procedural defect, the dismissal was lawful and the constitutional challenge failed. The court rejected claims for reinstatement, damages, and salary arrears, but affirmed entitlement to earned pension, subject to exclusion of the period spent unlawfully under the county contract.
Source excerpt
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
Dinlas Pharma EPZ Ltd v Ndamwe (Appeal E182 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2386 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the respondent was on a single fixed-term contract that expired on its stated end date, and the renewal clause was discretionary, not a promise of renewal. The respondent showed no regular practice or clear promise sufficient to establish legitimate expectation. Accordingly, there was no unfair termination, so the compensation award was set aside. However, leave pay was upheld because the appellant failed to show the respondent had taken leave, and the bond money was ordered refunded because the employment relationship had ended and the appellant retained the respondent’s…
Source excerpt
Nyoro Construction Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E479 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 290 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The VAT assessments for 2017 and 2018 and the income tax assessment for 2017 were time-barred because the Respondent failed to prove fraud, willful neglect, or evasion. For the remaining years, the Respondent's objection decision was unjustified because the Appellant produced invoices, receipts, and wage records that the Commissioner ignored without plausible explanation, and the Respondent did not rebut the supplementary material. The appeal succeeded, but the Tribunal declined to entertain the new WIP issue because it was not raised at objection stage.
Source excerpt
Yarde Park Lounge Ltd v Commissioner for Domestic Taxes (Tax Appeal E1208 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 308 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Tribunal held that the Appellant did not sufficiently support its objection with the documents and records requested by the Respondent, and therefore failed to discharge its statutory burden of proof. The Respondent’s objection decision and additional assessments were consequently justified.
Source excerpt
Farmers Choice Ltd v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal E130 of 2026) [2026] KETAT 289 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal was struck out because the Appellant did not challenge the tariff review decision within the 45-day statutory period required by section 230 of EACCMA. Time ran from the Respondent’s review decision of 10 April 2025, and the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 January 2026 was fatally out of time. Because the appeal was incompetent, the Tribunal refused to address the tax merits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
