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 dismissed a petition challenging a National Assembly PAC report on the NYS audit, finding the petitioner was heard and no constitutional breach was proved.
Omollo & 2 others v County Government of Kisumu & 6 others (Environment and Land Petition E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5361 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed a preliminary objection and granted conservatory orders partly preserving public housing tenants from eviction, repossession, and adverse classification pending the petition.
Ashleys Kenya Ltd v Opiyo (Appeal E357 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2441 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the respondent became an employee after a consultancy lapsed, and that the appellant’s termination was unfair for lack of due process.
Mwangangi v H Young & Company Ltd Estate Africa Limited (Appeal E409 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2444 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court found the appellant was unfairly terminated when the respondent ended his employment over project completion without complying with statutory safeguards.
Mutuku v Zheng Hong (K) Limited (Appeal E356 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 2443 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the termination was unfair because the employer’s operational shutdown amounted to redundancy without compliance with statutory procedure.
Cheva v Pan Africa Logistics Limited (Environment and Land Case E298 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 811 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found that although the Respondent proved financial difficulty, it did not prove that the Claimant’s particular role had become redundant in September 2023, nor did it show a fresh redundancy process, fresh notice, Labour Officer notice, or contemporaneous consultation proximate to the actual termination. The 2021 redundancy exercise had been overtaken by continued employment, unpaid leave, and recall to work. The termination was therefore substantively and procedurally unfair under sections 40 and 45 of the Employment Act. The Claimant was awarded severance, admitted outstanding gr…
Source excerpt
Ruma v Proto Energy Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E591 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 781 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the Respondent proved a valid substantive reason for disciplinary action because the Claimant reported to an LPG safety-sensitive shift after consuming alcohol, but the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the Claimant was given an unreasonably compressed opportunity to answer the Notice to Show Cause and prepare for the hearing. The Claimant therefore succeeded only on procedural unfairness and limited monetary relief.
Source excerpt
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
Vassanji v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd (Petition E016 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2414 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The petition did not disclose constitutional violations outside the employment law framework. The alleged detention, intimidation, confiscation of the phone, denial of communication and the impugned disciplinary process were treated as elements of a grievance capable of redress under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. Because the statutory framework was adequate and the dispute was fundamentally an unfair termination claim, the court held that constitutional avoidance applied and the matter ought to have been filed as an ordinary employment claim.
Source excerpt
Nyachieo & 9 others v Kenya Orient Insurance Ltd (Cause 179 of 2019) [2026] KEELRC 2423 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Respondent proved a genuine redundancy based on restructuring, automation and business efficiency, and the consultation and notification requirements under section 40 were substantially met for all Claimants except the 4th Claimant. The 4th Claimant, who was on maternity leave, was excluded from the consultation process and that exclusion amounted to direct discrimination; she was therefore entitled to compensation equal to three months' gross salary.
Source excerpt
Explore more
