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 that failure to join all successful tenderers under section 170(c) of the PPADA was a fatal defect, so the Board lawfully struck out the review.
The High Court quashed the suspension of four minor learners from SHG High School, holding that suspending all 15 learners present at the dispensary was collective punishment.
Republic v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Weru (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E079 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 13189 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court held that an intermediary, counsel, and medical accommodations were sufficient for a fair trial, and allowed the magistrate’s trial to proceed.
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)
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
Ngungi & another v Kanyi & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E073 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5193 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the judicial review proceedings concerned the legality and procedural propriety of the administrative decision dated 7th August 2025, while the other suits concerned ownership, title, trespass, and adverse possession over the property. The issues and remedies were different, there was no substantial overlap, and a determination in this suit would not directly affect the earlier matters; therefore Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act did not apply.
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 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
Republic v Public Procurement Regulatory Board & 3 others; Peesam Ltd (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E197 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12126 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the Debarment Committee lawfully exercised its statutory mandate under section 41(1)(d) and Regulation 22, because Peesam was given notice and a chance to file a written response but failed to do so, and its separate judicial review filing did not substitute for that response or stay the proceedings. In the absence of a disputed written response, no oral hearing or seven-day hearing notice was triggered. The Committee independently verified the allegations with KAA, was properly constituted, and imposed the statutory minimum debarment period. The applicant therefore failed…
Source excerpt
Nyapola v Nairobi City County Revenue Authority & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E033 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2296 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)
The 1st respondent lacked the legal mandate to advertise and initiate recruitment for county public service positions because that function is reserved to the County Public Service Board under Article 235 of the Constitution and section 57 of the County Government Act. Withdrawal of the advertisement did not cure the illegality, and the proposed secondment arrangement could not lawfully circumvent the Board’s exclusive mandate. The impugned actions were ultra vires and justified certiorari and prohibition.
Source excerpt
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)
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
Explore more
