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 plaintiff proved the accident, ownership of the matatu, and her injuries, but not negligence by the defendant’s driver. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Siocha v Hashimweyezu (Legal Representative of the Estate of John Mbumba (Deceased) (Civil Appeal E195 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13090 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to prove negligence and failed to prove causation between the accident and the deceased’s death. The trial court also erred in awarding dependency damages to the deceased’s brother, who is not a dependant under section 4(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act. The High Court therefore set aside the subordinate court judgment and dismissed the suit.
Source excerpt
Mung’athia v Republic (Criminal Appeal E018 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12982 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal on conviction failed because the prosecution evidence, despite minor discrepancies, consistently established that the appellant unlawfully assaulted the deceased and that the assault caused the fatal head injury; self-defence was not available on the facts; and the alleged procedural issues did not prejudice the appellant. However, the sentence was interfered with because the original term was excessive in the circumstances, and a lower custodial term was substituted.
Source excerpt
Mwarua v Pandya Memorial Society Registered Trustees & 2 others (Civil Suit 333 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 12838 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were not proved negligent: the evidence did not establish intra-arterial cannulation, and the consultant's diagnosis and emergency response met the Bolam standard. However, the 1st defendant was liable because its nursing and resident medical staff failed to ensure medical review, escalation and monitoring after the child complained of severe pain at the cannula site and the cannula was removed; that systemic failure breached the hospital's non-delegable duty and, on the balance of probabilities, materially caused the progression to gangrene and…
Source excerpt
Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd & another v Chana (Civil Appeal E257 of 2023 & E043 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 12781 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The suit was not res judicata and the subordinate court had jurisdiction because the claim was a civil action for negligence, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, not a regulatory dispute. Airtel was liable for negligently permitting an unauthorized SIM replacement, and the Bank failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that its fraud-control and response systems met the required standard of care. The respondent was contributorily negligent for failing to promptly alert the Bank after his mobile line became inoperative. However, the award of Kshs. 400,000 for mental torture and stress was legall…
Source excerpt
Kenya Breweries Limited v Gitau (Civil Appeal E079 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11958 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Richot Brandy bottle was contaminated or that any alleged contamination caused his injuries. The impugned bottle and its contents were never produced, no scientific analysis was tendered, the clinician did not attribute the injury directly to the product, the documentary record contained material inconsistencies, and the evidential burden never shifted to the appellant. The misjoinder objection was pleaded but remained unproven.
Source excerpt
Simba Coach Ltd v Ongonga (Civil Appeal E004 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11535 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the Respondent had discharged the legal burden by presenting evidence that the Appellant’s driver veered into the motorcycle’s lane and caused the accident, while the Appellant failed to rebut that evidence with credible proof. The fact that the Respondent jumped off before the collision did not sever causation because the Appellant’s negligent driving set the events in motion and caused the injuries. There was therefore no basis to interfere with the trial court’s finding of 100% liability or the award on quantum.
Source excerpt
Republic v Luvaka & another (Criminal Case E004 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4591 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court accepted the deceased's consistent dying declaration, corroborated by medical and investigative evidence, and found that both accused participated in a joint assault causing death. However, the prosecution did not exclude reasonable doubt on malice aforethought because the deceased arrived armed, a violent confrontation ensued, and the 1st accused was injured. The court therefore reduced the offence from murder to manslaughter and convicted both accused accordingly.
Source excerpt
Republic v Kiplagat (Criminal Case 13 of 2013) [2026] KEHC 10775 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the deceased, that the injuries were gross, multiple, and incompatible with an innocent accident, and that his conduct after the assault, including evidence of sexual activity while the deceased was incapacitated, supported an inference of malice aforethought. The accused's version was rejected because it did not account for the severity and multiplicity of injuries or the forensic and eyewitness evidence.
Source excerpt
Maina v Kangaroo Shuttle Services Ltd (Civil Appeal E029 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10025 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellant did not discharge the burden of proving liability on a balance of probabilities. The court found significant, unexplained inconsistencies between the alleged accident date and the hospital treatment date, the OB extract was incomplete and lacked a proper accident date, the police abstract did not prove negligence, and the supporting evidence did not satisfactorily establish causation or link the respondent’s vehicle to the accident. The trial court’s dismissal of the suit was therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
