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 a preliminary objection, holding that the petition was a commercial dispute in constitutional clothing and that the petitioner lacked standing.
High Court allowed an appeal over WhatsApp service, holding service on a registered number was not enough where the number was not shown to be the defendant’s used number.
Said & another v Mbarak (Environment and Land Case 12 of 2020) [2026] KEMC 806 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that Salim Idha Mbarak was not personally bound by Mohamed Idha Mbarak's lease obligations because he was not the contracting lessee and was not shown to be Mohamed's legal representative. The Court therefore declined to nullify the lease against Mohamed's estate in proceedings where the estate was not properly represented, but found that Salim had no independent personal right to occupy the property, entitled the Plaintiffs to vacant possession, awarded KShs. 100,000 as general damages for trespass, and rejected mesne profits for lack of proof.
Source excerpt
Equator Two Thousand Limited & another v Eco Bank Kenya Limited & another (Civil Case E683 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12822 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant demonstrated a direct, proximate and identifiable interest in the subject matter because it claimed current occupation and business operations on the suit property, and the disputed lease and occupation could be materially affected by the suit. Since the existing orders were issued before the applicant was heard and the contested facts require full interrogation at trial, joinder was necessary and the status quo had to be preserved pending final determination. Costs were therefore ordered to abide the outcome of the suit.
Source excerpt
Mwachia t/a Springlight Arts Hub v St. Peter’s Hill View School (Commercial Case E044 of 2026) [2026] SCC 190 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The signed proposal dated 3/1/2026 was a binding contract because it evidenced offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. On the evidence, the amounts due had to be computed from the enrolment schedule and the agreed 80:20 sharing ratio. Applying that ratio to the court's calculated total of Kshs.192,000 produced Kshs.153,600 due to the claimant, less no basis for reducing liability further.
Source excerpt
Weihai Construction Group Ltd v Chege t/a Graphmann Engineering (Small Claims Appeal E014 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12688 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the contract was clear, the respondent's entitlement to the outstanding balance was supported by the record, and the appellant did not demonstrate any basis for appellate interference. The High Court held that it could not rework the parties' commercial agreement or import new terms, and the trial court's decision disclosed no error of law or fact warranting reversal.
Source excerpt
Kasarani Juakali Resettlement Project Ltd v Kinuthia & another (Appeal E008 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5276 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the Appellant was not a stranger to the transaction in substance because it confirmed ownership records, issued the ownership certificate, received fees, and participated in the identification and subsequent mediation over the wrong plot. That conduct supported liability for the fraudulent and failed transaction. The court also found the 2nd Respondent equally liable because his evidence was uncontroverted and he was the principal vendor in the sale agreement. The award of Kshs. 2,800,000 was upheld as proper compensation based on the valuation evidence and restitution pri…
Source excerpt
Mweti v Orawo & 3 others (Commercial Suit 027 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12387 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the plaint did disclose reliefs and arguable issues against the 2nd Defendant, and that the question was not whether the allegations would ultimately be proven but whether they were hopeless at the interlocutory stage. Because triable issues existed, it was premature to strike out the suit against the 2nd Defendant.
Source excerpt
Gulf African Bank Limited v View Power Communications Limited & another (Civil Suit E050 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12322 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved that the 2nd Defendant executed a continuing guarantee securing the 1st Defendant’s facilities, and clause 2.01 preserved his liability notwithstanding any change in the borrower’s constitution or his cessation as director/shareholder. The sale agreement with the purchaser was res inter alios acta and could not discharge the guarantee without the Plaintiff’s consent. The Plaintiff’s cooperation in changing account signatories did not amount to waiver, variation or estoppel. The 2nd Defendant’s own evidence also undermined his exit-from-company defence. Judgment therefore…
Source excerpt
Abud v Hassan & 8 others (Environment and Land Appeal E063 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5229 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove an enforceable tenancy or controlled tenancy against the 1st/9th respondent, his alleged sub-lease was unregistered and unsupported by evidence of recognition by the registered owner, and the 9th respondent held a valid registered lease that the appellant did not impeach on the statutory grounds of fraud, illegality, misrepresentation or procedural impropriety. The lower court therefore correctly upheld the 9th respondent's title and dismissed the appellant's claims.
Source excerpt
Explore more
