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
In re Estate of Odhiambo (Deceased) (Succession Cause E030 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 13222 (KLR) (1 September 2026) (Judgment)
The High Court at Nakuru held that Nakuru Municipality Block 29/41 was not proved to be part of the deceased’s estate and excluded it from distribution.
The court held that the plaintiff owned the vehicle subject to a prior security interest, but the repossession was forceful and unlawful. Damages of Kshs.200,000 were awarded.
In re Estate of Gachunga (Succession Cause 223 of 1995) [2026] KEMC 487 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling)
The administrator obtained and confirmed the grant by concealing the existence of the applicant, a material beneficiary, so the grant was liable to revocation under section 76. The 1st interested party could not rely on section 93 because the administrator had no lawful title to sell the deceased’s land before proper authority existed. The dispute over land parcel 589 had already been conclusively determined by the Land Disputes Tribunal and adopted by court, so it was res judicata and could not be reopened.
Source excerpt
Ereng v Swisscom Logistics Ltd (Civil Application E435 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1589 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The proposed issues were either factual disputes already resolved by the ELC and the Court of Appeal, issues not raised or determined below, or questions governed by settled law. None transcended the circumstances of the parties or disclosed a substantial question of law bearing on the public interest. Certification and leave were therefore refused.
Source excerpt
Kiloku & another v Kithaka & 32 others (Environment and Land Case E084 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5127 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
Because the Defendants sought substantive relief against the 6 Interested Parties, keeping them as mere Interested Parties was procedurally wrong and denied them the right to defend themselves. The proper course was to amend the counter-claim and join them as defendants, with service to be effected personally and physically.
Source excerpt
Mwangi v Republic (Criminal Appeal E318 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12884 (KLR) (Crim) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court found that the prosecution proved the deceased was the lawful beneficiary of plots 4 and 5 through balloting, contribution, and witness evidence, while the appellant’s alleged purchase documents did not establish a superior legal right. The appellant’s occupation was actual, without colour of right, and was maintained after forcefully removing the complainant’s fence, creating confrontation and breach of peace. The civil-land argument failed because criminal liability under section 91 was independently established on the evidence.
Source excerpt
Lakeview Investment Ltd v Odero (Sued as the Chairman, Nairobi Kenya Secondary Schools Heads Association) & another (Environment and Land Case 280 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4884 (KLR) (29 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the 1st Defendant proved a valid registered title to LR No. 24561 and the Plaintiff’s deed plans were for a different parcel, so the Plaintiff failed to prove the root of its alleged title. The 2nd Defendant also failed to prove her root of title. The Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant were not bona fide purchasers because the land had already been allocated to the 1st Defendant and was not available for alienation. On the evidence, the Plaintiff trespassed on the 1st Defendant’s land, justifying eviction, removal of structures, a permanent injunction and nominal damages for tres…
Source excerpt
Muigai v Njeru & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E137 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4478 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff failed to prove a perfected allotment or any enforceable proprietary right because he did not comply with the allotment conditions, accepted and paid late, and his own evidence collapsed under cross-examination. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants fraudulently generated the root title, so their allotment and the resulting lease were void ab initio. The downstream titles of the 1st and 2nd Defendants fell with the illegal root, the 1st Defendant’s lease was cancelled, the register was to be cleansed, and the 3rd to 5th Defendants were ordered to indemnify the 2nd Defendant for losses…
Source excerpt
Okello (Suing as Personal Representative of Alfonce Odhiambo Apoda - Deceased) v Barasa (Sued as Personal Representatives of Herenia Atsieno Odhiambo - Deceased) & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4458 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that Apoda died in 1983 and therefore could not have executed any lawful transfer in 1991. Herenia’s registration and the resulting subdivisions were fraudulent and illegal, so she acquired no valid title capable of passing to the defendants. Because the defendants produced no sale agreements and their claim depended on the tainted root title, they could not establish bona fide purchase, trust, or adverse possession. The counterclaim therefore failed and the disputed titles had to be cancelled and restored to Apoda’s name.
Source excerpt
Karanja (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Karanja Gaturu) v Kambi & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 18 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4949 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)
The plaintiff proved that the suit land originated from a lawful interest in favour of Karanja Gaturu, while the 1st Defendant failed to demonstrate a lawful root of title. The earlier decree and eviction order had not been set aside, and the subsequent registrations, subdivision, consolidation and transfer chain were founded on a defective and fraudulent root. As a result, the later titles, including the 8th Defendant's title, were void and liable to cancellation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
