Esheria Kenya Case Law
Sign in
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Kenya Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Kenya case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Kenya decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Land law [2026] KEELC 5340 (KLR)

Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Kiunye (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Deputy County Commissioner Tigania Central & 3 others; Kiunye (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5340 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E021 of 2025
Judge
["BM Eboso"]

The decision was quashed because the Minister’s delegatee committed fundamental procedural impropriety by failing to invite the ex-parte applicant to the locus-in-quo hearing, and further failed to properly complete the record by obtaining the applicant’s signature/thumbprint and capturing his name on the award. Those omissions violated the duty to afford a fair hearing and made the impugned proceedings and decision unsustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Land adjudication
  • Certiorari
  • Fair hearing
  • Procedural impropriety
  • Ultra vires
  • Section 29 land adjudication act appeals to the minister
Read case analysis
Public procurement [2026] KEHC 12190 (KLR)

Republic v Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others; Buffallo Productions Ltd (Ex parte)

Republic v Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others; Buffallo Productions Ltd (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E212 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12190 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Judicial Review E212 of 2026
Judge
["WM Musyoka"]

The motion failed because it sought a merits-based reappraisal of tender evaluation under the guise of judicial review. The court found no illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness, or excess of jurisdiction in the Review Board’s decision, and held that the applicant had not established any basis for supervisory вмеш interference with the procurement process or the board’s dismissal of the request for review.

Source excerpt

  • Tender responsiveness
  • Wednesbury unreasonableness
  • Ultra vires
  • Procedural fairness
  • Appeal disguised as judicial review
  • Mandatory tender requirements
Read case analysis
Judicial review [2026] KEHC 12005 (KLR)

Republic v Motor Vehicle Examiner (NTSA-Thika) & 2 others; Swaleh (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Motor Vehicle Examiner (NTSA-Thika) & 2 others; Swaleh (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E007 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12005 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Judicial Review Application E007 of 2024
Judge
["EM Muriithi"]

The court held that the 1st Respondent’s officer committed procedural impropriety by refusing to consider the TIMS data, declining to give reasons, and insisting only on his own view. Because the vehicle had a valid inspection certificate until 15/5/2024, the declaration that it had expired, the removal of number plates, and the ensuing traffic charges were ultra vires, illegal, irrational and disproportionate, violating Article 47 and justifying certiorari.

Source excerpt

  • Certiorari
  • Article 47 fair administrative action
  • Procedural impropriety
  • Ultra vires
  • Roadside vehicle inspection
  • Traffic prosecution
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KECA 1478 (KLR)

M'Mbetsa v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands & 4 others

M'Mbetsa v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands & 4 others (Civil Appeal E126 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1478 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal E126 of 2023
Judge
["DK Musinga", "AK Murgor", "J Mohammed"]

The Court held that Objection No. 45 of 2021 was not a proper section 26 objection but a belated appeal against a final Arbitration Board decision made in 2010. Section 26 does not empower a Land Adjudication Officer to reopen, review, or vary that decision. The Land Adjudication Officer acted ultra vires by creating Plot No. 2932, and the Minister’s affirming decision was equally unlawful. The Environment and Land Court was therefore right to quash both decisions and to order implementation of the Arbitration Board’s decision.

Source excerpt

  • Land adjudication
  • Statutory objections
  • Exhaustion of statutory remedies
  • Certiorari and mandamus
  • Jurisdiction
  • Ultra vires
Read case analysis
Judicial review [2026] KEELC 4718 (KLR)

Republic v Deputy County Commisioner - Kilungu & 5 others; Yulu (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Deputy County Commisioner - Kilungu & 5 others; Yulu (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4718 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2023
Judge
["EO Obaga"]

The applicant failed to prove illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or breach of natural justice. The record showed that the applicant was present, heard, and allowed to cross-examine witnesses before the Deputy County Commissioner, who acted within jurisdiction under section 29 of the Land Adjudication Act. The challenge was an attack on the merits of the decision, which is not amenable to judicial review.

Source excerpt

  • Fair hearing
  • Due process
  • Ultra vires
  • Certiorari
  • Prohibition
  • Mandamus
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 11539 (KLR)

Timona & 2 others v Mwangi & 3 others

Timona & 2 others v Mwangi & 3 others (Civil Case E063 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 11539 (KLR) (Civ) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Case E063 of 2026
Judge
["KL Kandet"]

The preliminary objection failed because it depended on disputed factual matters and therefore was not a pure point of law. Section 18 of the Societies Act does not expressly oust the High Court’s jurisdiction, nor does it create an exclusive forum barring constitutional and supervisory intervention. Given the allegations of unlawful removal, breach of the society constitution, procedural unfairness and threatened infringement of rights, the doctrine of exhaustion did not bar the suit.

Source excerpt

  • Preliminary objection
  • Jurisdiction
  • Doctrine of exhaustion
  • Societies act section 18
  • Internal dispute resolution
  • Ultra vires
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 4675 (KLR)

Njabasha & 2 others v Land Registrar, Kajiado & 10 others

Njabasha & 2 others v Land Registrar, Kajiado & 10 others (Environment and Land Appeal E042 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4675 (KLR) (20 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Appeal E042 of 2024
Judge
["MD Mwangi"]

The Land Registrar had jurisdiction to hear and determine the boundary dispute under sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, but the impugned decision was set aside because it failed to reconcile the surveyor's report with the Registry Index Map, existing beacons and cadastral records, relied unduly on cattle trails, and appeared to alter acreage and proprietary interests without demonstrating lawful statutory authority. The proper remedy was remittal for a fresh boundary determination by the Land Registrar and County Surveyor.

Source excerpt

  • Boundary determination
  • Land registrar jurisdiction
  • Registry index map
  • Survey evidence
  • Acreage alteration
  • Ultra vires
Read case analysis
Judicial review [2026] KEHC 9550 (KLR)

Republic v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another; Mburu (Ex parte)

Republic v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another; Mburu (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E088 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9550 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (2 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Judicial Review E088 of 2026
Judge
["WM Musyoka"]

The prosecution was quashed because the dispute arose from an ongoing commercial tenancy already recognized by civil and tribunal decisions, the tenant had not become a trespasser merely by expiry of the written lease, the matter had the characteristics of a controlled tenancy, and the criminal charge against the applicant personally was irrational, unreasonable, and an abuse of criminal process aimed at bypassing the proper civil and tribunal mechanisms.

Source excerpt

  • Certiorari
  • Prohibition
  • Forcible detainer
  • Abuse of prosecutorial discretion
  • Parallel civil and criminal proceedings
  • Controlled tenancy
Read case analysis
Administrative law [2026] KEHC 9134 (KLR)

Republic v Kenya Copyright Board & another; Kamp Copyright and Related Rights Ltd (Ex parte)

Republic v Kenya Copyright Board & another; Kamp Copyright and Related Rights Ltd (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E109 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9134 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (26 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Judicial Review E109 of 2026
Judge
["WM Musyoka"]

The proceedings were incompetent because the Copyright Act created a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism through the Copyright Tribunal, which the applicant had already tried to invoke but did so out of time. Any further challenge had to target the Tribunal’s determination, not the respondent’s licensing decision. Since the application attacked the wrong decision and bypassed the statutory route, it disclosed no foundation for judicial review relief and had to be struck out.

Source excerpt

  • Exhaustion of internal dispute resolution mechanisms
  • Jurisdiction
  • Licensing of collective management organisations
  • Copyright tribunal appeals
  • Order 53 judicial review
  • Procedural competence
Read case analysis
Constitutional law [2026] KEHC 9587 (KLR)

Matindi v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & 68 others

Matindi v Salaries and Remuneration Commission & 68 others (Petition E297 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9587 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (10 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Petition E297 of 2024
Judge
["B Mwamuye"]

The petition was sufficiently pleaded, and although gazettement was not a mandatory condition for validity, the SRC’s decision failed because the public participation relied on did not relate to the specific remuneration package later adopted after job evaluation, and the Foreign Service Allowance was left vague by reference to unspecified current rates rather than being clearly set by the SRC itself. Those defects made the decision constitutionally infirm and liable to be quashed, though the quashing order was stayed for 190 days to permit fresh public participation and regularisation.

Source excerpt

  • Public participation
  • Src mandate
  • Remuneration and benefits of state officers
  • Foreign service allowance
  • Gazettement
  • Ultra vires
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.