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 declined to join the proposed interested party, finding the judicial review application was confined to enforcement of an earlier judgment and not ownership disputes.
The Court of Appeal partly allowed an application for extension of time and amendment of an appeal, but left the stay request for a full bench.
The High Court granted leave to appeal out of time after a three-day delay, but dismissed the request for stay of execution and stay of proceedings.
Republic v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Weru (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E079 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 13189 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court held that an intermediary, counsel, and medical accommodations were sufficient for a fair trial, and allowed the magistrate’s trial to proceed.
Chencha & Chencha (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Francis Mokua Nyangau – Deceased) & another v Mbugua & 7 others (Complaint E006 of 2026) [2026] KEADR 2 (KLR) (24 August 2026) (Determination)
The Committee held that the Environment and Land Court was already seized of the same dispute between the same parties and had issued interim conservatory orders; therefore the Committee could not validly determine a parallel complaint, including the enforcement notice question, because doing so would overlap with and potentially conflict with issues pending before the court.
Source excerpt
Ndirangu v Jivunie Enterprises Ltd (Commercial Case E754 of 2025) [2026] SCC 228 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicants specifically identified disputed factual averments in paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit and demonstrated that those facts were material to the pending motion. The court held that fraud or bad faith are not mandatory preconditions to cross-examination under Order 19 Rule 2; the governing test is whether cross-examination is necessary in the interests of justice. On that basis, the court exercised its discretion to permit cross-examination, stayed the main motion pending that process, and limited the cross-examination to the identified factual disputes.
Source excerpt
Afrison Export Import Ltd & another v Ethics and Ant-Corruption Commission (EACC) (Judicial Review Application E276 & E297 of 2026 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 13012 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court declined to grant stay because the dispute and the relief sought were anchored in litigation already pending before the Supreme Court and arose from a land compensation matter within the jurisdictional sphere of the Environment and Land Court and appellate courts; the High Court was not seized of the matter and granting stay would amount to abuse of process and an impermissible disguised attempt to suspend implementation of superior-court decisions.
Source excerpt
Namwoso v Namwoso (Environment and Land Case E041 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 643 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the applicant did not produce evidence showing the status or transfer of the appeal before the defunct Provincial Land Disputes Tribunal, the issues were already tied to pending proceedings in Bungoma CMC LDT Case No. 002 of 2008, and, in any event, the applicant sought substantive final relief in a manner the court held was procedurally improper. The application was therefore not merited and was struck out.
Source excerpt
Agutu v Milemba & 3 others (Petition E136 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2413 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the present petition raises the same substantive controversy as the earlier pending matters, namely the alleged conflict of interest arising from the 1st respondent's simultaneous roles in Parliament and KUPPET. Applying section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the sub judice doctrine, the court found that allowing the petition to proceed would risk parallel adjudication and conflicting outcomes. It therefore stayed the petition pending determination of ELRCC No. 253 of 2025.
Source excerpt
Tahalil v Director of Public Prosecution & another (Criminal Miscellaneous Application E104 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13036 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court declined to extend the stay orders because the complainant was elderly and willing to testify, no prejudice would be suffered by the accused if she appeared in the trial court, and the applicant could still challenge her evidence through cross-examination and raise identity issues before the trial court; the lower court trial was therefore allowed to proceed without delay.
Source excerpt
Explore more
