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 dismissed a review motion against a conditional stay order, holding that execution after default was not a new matter and review was improper pendency of appeal.
High Court civil appeal ruling in a matter between David Mbuthia Mbuga and Thomas Maluki and a minor respondent. The supplied text contains no substantive reasoning and the decision is still being processed.
Chege v Family Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal E174 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12226 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
Although the appellate court found that the charged properties were agricultural land and that the respondent had not proved Land Control Board consent, rendering the charge void, the appellant’s pleadings sought only injunction, accounts, and suspension of interest/penalties premised on a subsisting charge. Because no effective relief could be fashioned within the confines of the pleadings and record, and the underlying debt remained recoverable by lawful means, the appeal failed.
Source excerpt
Quick Matt Limited v Chimisa (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Shelmith Ayera (Deceased)) (Civil Appeal E095 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10360 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Judgment)
The respondent did not prove, by credible evidence, the exact manner in which the accident occurred, and the police abstract alone could not fix liability on the appellant. In the absence of an eye witness, the investigating officer, sketch plan, or the appellant’s driver, the proper disposition was to apportion liability equally at 50:50. On quantum, the award for pain and suffering had to be reduced because the deceased died the same day as the accident, while the other heads of damages were reasonable and were left undisturbed.
Source excerpt
Simiyu v Nasipwondi (Civil Appeal E146 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10329 (KLR) (16 June 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal concerned land-related reliefs that required evaluation of evidence and land law, placing the dispute within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2). By dint of Article 165(5), the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it, so the appellate court struck out the appeal.
Source excerpt
Kiti v Republic (Criminal Appeal E038 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12488 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KEHC 12488 (KLR)
Source excerpt
Tarmal Wire Products Ltd v Charo (Civil Appeal E135 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1540 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Judgment)
The appellate court found that the Respondent had executed the last fixed-term contract produced by the Appellant, running from 2 January 2023 to 3 April 2023. The Respondent’s denial of signature was treated as an afterthought because he did not properly controvert the defence pleadings or documents. The employment therefore ended automatically by effluxion of time, not through unfair termination or redundancy, and the Appellant was not required to issue notice or conduct a disciplinary hearing. The awards for notice pay, compensation and house allowance were consequently unsustainable and w…
Source excerpt
Macharia v Kariuki & another (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2677 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the Respondents lacked locus standi to counterclaim on behalf of the deceased’s estate without proof of a grant, and in any event they failed to strictly prove fraud or any basis to impeach the Appellant’s registered title. The Appellant’s title to Nyandarua/karati/2457 remained protected under the Land Registration Act, so the trial court’s cancellation of the title and related orders could not stand.
Source excerpt
Gichuki v Ndunge (Appeal E198 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 6089 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 May 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court’s Commercial and Tax Division lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the underlying dispute was about ownership and possession of land, which falls exclusively within the Environment and Land Court’s jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore not fit for determination by that division and had to be transmitted to the proper court.
Source excerpt
Lukio v Lebanguti & another (Land Case Appeal E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2630 (KLR) (Environment and Land) (6 May 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicants produced no cogent evidence showing that the Appellant was financially unable to meet any costs order or that security was otherwise justified. Mere allegations about lack of assets were insufficient, and the trial court costs had not yet been assessed. Ordering security in those circumstances would offend the governing authorities, the overriding objective, and the constitutional right of access to justice.
Source excerpt
Explore more
