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 held it lacked jurisdiction over AU entities protected by immunity, but found Kenyan officials’ silence on the petitioner’s complaint breached Article 47.
Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited & 2 others v Retirement Benefits Appeal Tribunal & 631 others (Petition E385 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13093 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court declined to nullify the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000 or the Schedule of Costs because the petitioners did not prove that the Rules were made otherwise than by or under the authority of the Chief Justice, and the statutory texts in sections 49(4) and 52 were read as permitting a distinct Tribunal costs scale. However, the court held that the specific process used to assess and incorporate KES 709,190,000 into the decree of 18 June 2025 was procedurally unfair because the petitioners were not given any opportunity to be heard on the quantum of costs, contrary to Articles…
Source excerpt
Dore & 3 others v African Express Airways (Kenya) Ltd & 3 others (Commercial Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12928 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Plaintiffs failed to prove contempt because there was no clear evidence of personal service or deliberate disobedience by Ahmed Rashid Jibril, and the requested reinstatement order would impermissibly determine disputed substantive shareholding and directorship issues at the interlocutory stage. By contrast, the 1st Defendant’s proposed amendment and counterclaim were allowed because they arose from the same transaction, were sought before full hearing, and caused no irreparable prejudice. The security for costs application failed because the 1st Defendant presented no concrete evidence t…
Source excerpt
Accounting Officer County Government of Nakuru, Department of Health Services & another v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E003 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12872 (KLR) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)
The preliminary objection failed because the delay beyond the forty-five-day period was caused by the Court's own scheduling, while the Applicants had complied with every timeline imposed on them. Section 175(3) and (5) could not be applied in a manner that punishes a blameless litigant for court-occasioned delay, because that would violate the right of access to justice and the principle that an act of the Court should not prejudice a party.
Source excerpt
Ongono v Transmara Sugar Co.Ltd (Civil Appeal E110 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12828 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
Although the appellant’s explanation for non-attendance and lack of prosecution since 2018 was weak, the trial court record showed both parties were represented, and the respondent did not oppose the adjournment. In the interests of justice and to afford the appellant a second chance, the appellate court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the suit for hearing on the merits before another judicial officer.
Source excerpt
Chepngetich & another v County Government of Bomet & 4 others (Constitutional Petition E007 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12602 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The dispute was a pre-employment recruitment matter reserved for the Employment and Labour Relations Court, not the High Court. Because a similar petition was already pending in the ELRC in Kericho, the High Court declined to determine the merits of the preliminary objection and transferred the matter to the ELRC in Kericho as the competent forum.
Source excerpt
Kiambu Club Ltd v Sports Tribunal & 2 others (Judicial Review E148 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12714 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Sports Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because Kiambu Club Limited was not shown to be a sports organization registered under section 46 of the Sports Act, had not transitioned under section 49, had no rules specifically allowing appeals to the Tribunal, had not agreed to refer the dispute to the Tribunal, and the matter was not an appeal from the Registrar. The Tribunal therefore acted ultra vires, and its ruling and proceedings were liable to be quashed by certiorari.
Source excerpt
Republic v Sub County Land Registrar at Kosele & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5084 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that although the Land Registrar has statutory powers over boundary disputes, the Applicant was in substance trying to reopen issues already determined in Oyugis SPMCC No. 74 of 2018 after a full hearing on the merits, and had not shown that the earlier judgment was appealed or set aside. Because judicial review is supervisory and not an appellate mechanism, mandamus could not be used to compel the Registrar to revisit and effectively undo matters previously litigated. Despite this, the Court ultimately treated the Registrar’s failure to act on the complaint and promised site v…
Source excerpt
Republic v Director General Kenya Maritime Authority & another; Zhejiang Hairong Ocean Fisheries Company Limited in Joint Venture with Everland Foods Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12008 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that Zhejiang had locus standi because it was an incorporated legal entity and had proprietary rights in the vessels, and that section 974 of the Companies Act did not bar it from suing in Kenya. However, the verifying and further affidavits were fatally defective because they omitted the place of swearing, lacked translated identification of the oath administrator, and their annexures were not properly sealed and marked as required by law. Once those affidavits were struck out, the application was left without evidence and became incompetent, so the court upheld the preliminar…
Source excerpt
Stichting Rabobank Foundation v Mwangi & another (Civil Appeal E090 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1550 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court erred by treating non-registration under section 974 of the Companies Act as automatically fatal to the appellant's locus standi and by determining at preliminary stage a contested factual question—whether the appellant was carrying on business in Kenya—without evidence. Section 974 does not, by express language or necessary implication, bar an unregistered foreign company from suing in Kenya; the suit was therefore wrongly struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
