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 quashed the suspension of four minor learners from SHG High School, holding that suspending all 15 learners present at the dispensary was collective punishment.
Super Metro Ltd v County Government of Nairobi & another (Judicial Review E160 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13069 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the applicant had an existing authority to access the terminus, had paid the requisite fees, and was blocked without prior notice, reasons, or an opportunity to be heard. The respondents filed no response to controvert those facts. The impugned action was therefore procedurally unfair, irrational, and unreasonable, violating natural justice and the Fair Administrative Action Act, so judicial review reliefs were warranted.
Source excerpt
Bare v Petroleum Institute of East Africa & another (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E112 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13058 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The impugned revision orders were unlawful and irregular because they enhanced sentence against the applicant without affording him a hearing as required by section 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 50 of the Constitution. The confusing record left doubt as to the identity of the unrepresented respondent, and that doubt had to be resolved in the applicant’s favour. The orders were therefore set aside and the revision application remitted for hearing inter partes.
Source excerpt
Platinum Credit Ltd v Ngolo & another (Civil Appeal E1295 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12912 (KLR) (Civ) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court upheld liability because the Commissioner substantially complied with fair administrative procedure and the evidence supported a finding that Platinum Credit Limited, as data controller, unlawfully processed the 1st Respondent’s personal data for marketing without consent through communications linked to its commercial operations and agents. The Court further held that the compensation award, though inadequately reasoned in the decision below, fell within a lawful range on independent appellate re-evaluation, and the Enforcement Notice was upheld to take effect from the date of judg…
Source excerpt
Wayongo v Worrow Ltd (Commercial Case E6749 of 2026) [2026] SCC 217 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that service was not proved because there was no affidavit or certificate of service, no notice of appointment by the respondent, and no filed correspondence establishing the alleged email address as authorized by the respondent. Without proof of service, default judgment could not issue and the claim was incompetent, warranting striking out for want of service.
Source excerpt
Mashua v Ntoipo & 4 others (Tribunal Case E544 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 326 (KLR) (13 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Tribunal held that the Claimant was suspended on allegations for which he was never given notice or an opportunity to respond, and the Respondents filed no evidence to justify the decision. On the uncontroverted record, the suspension violated Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, rendering it unlawful, null and void. The Claimant therefore merited declaratory relief, quashing of the suspension, reinstatement-related relief, injunction, costs, and modest general damages.
Source excerpt
Ongoro v SGA Guarding Ltd & another (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E065 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2403 (KLR) (12 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the Respondents failed to comply with mandatory procedural fairness requirements. The suspension letter was not a valid notice to show cause, the Appellant was ambushed with a hearing on less than one day’s notice, the process denied reasonable preparation and hearing rights, and the appeal was not independent because persons involved in the original disciplinary process sat on the appeal panel. The trial court therefore erred in finding the termination lawful, and the Appellant was entitled to compensation.
Source excerpt
Kipkuriat Farm Ltd v Ole Nabaala & 3 others; Nabaala (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E016 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12728 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The suit was improperly filed as a fresh original action because the dispute had already been handled by the Land Registrar, and any challenge to that decision or the process used had to be brought through the statutory appellate mechanism, not by instituting a new plaint in the Environment and Land Court. The preliminary objection failed on the narrow point that the Registrar's jurisdiction had been invoked, but the suit itself was still incompetent and struck out for bypassing the appeal route.
Source excerpt
Wambua & 3 others v Commissioner for Co-operative Development (Tribunal Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KECOPT 315 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Tribunal held that the appellants' complaints about procedural bias, the legality of the special general meeting, fair hearing, and the conduct of the inquiry were judicial review issues outside its jurisdiction. Relying on the Co-operative Societies Act and constitutional jurisprudence, it declined to entertain those questions and dismissed the appeal, leaving the appellants to pursue judicial review in the High Court.
Source excerpt
Republic v County Registrar, Rachuonyo & 4 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5071 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The application failed because prohibition cannot restrain completed acts, the register had already been closed and titles issued before the suit, and mandamus could not be used to cancel titles or determine ownership rights of non-parties. The applicants also failed to prove a clear unperformed statutory duty or lawful refusal by the Land Registrar, and the relief sought required substantive adjudication beyond judicial review.
Source excerpt
Explore more
