Kenya Case Law

Mwatibo & 7 others v Mramba & 6 others; Maungu Ranching (DA) Co Ltd & 3 others (Interested Parties)

Mwatibo & 7 others v Mramba & 6 others; Maungu Ranching (DA) Co Ltd & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEELC 4828 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2025

Judge

EK Wabwoto

The Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to commence and prosecute a derivative action under the Companies Act, as such jurisdiction is expressly vested in the High Court by statute. The Companies Act 2015 defines the 'court' for derivative actions as the High Court, and jurisdiction cannot be assumed by implication or by reference to the subject matter of land or company management. In the interests of substantive justice and to avoid penalizing parties for filing in a court of cognate jurisdiction, the proper course is to transfer the matter to…

Source excerpt

• Derivative Actions
• Company Directors Duties
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• Conflict Of Interest
• Shareholder Rights

Homebay Property Limited v Fan & another; Minxue (Interested Party)

Homebay Property Limited v Fan & another; Minxue (Interested Party) [2025] KEELC 4655 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Land Case E017 of 2025

Judge

CG Mbogo

The court found that the applicant, as a majority shareholder and director, demonstrated sufficient interest in the subject matter to warrant joinder as a necessary party. The court held that the absence of a company resolution authorising the institution of the suit was not fatal at this stage, as the articles of association had not been produced and pre-trial directions were yet to be conducted, leaving room for regularisation. The court also declined to strike out the suit or bar the applicant's legal representation, finding no compelling evidence of conflict of interest or procedural impr…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Company Authorisation
• Bona Fide Purchaser
• Conflict Of Interest
• Striking Out Suit
• Shareholder Rights

Muchiri & another v Attorney General & 6 others; Selection Panel for Appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Media Council of Kenya (Interested Party)

Muchiri & another v Attorney General & 6 others; Selection Panel for Appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Media Council of Kenya (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 8929 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E040 of 2023

Judge

EC Mwita

The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that sections 7 and 14 of the Media Council Act, 2013 were unconstitutional. Section 7(3), which limits nominating organizations for the selection panel to thirteen, was held not to amount to negative discrimination, as a manageable panel size is necessary for effective governance and does not violate Article 27. The court held that the selection process provided for adequate public participation through publication of vacancies and shortlists, and that any qualified person could apply. Allegations of conflict of interest were not sub…

Source excerpt

• Media Regulation
• Public Participation
• Conflict Of Interest
• Judicial Review
• Freedom Of Expression

In re Estate of the Late Eustace Tatua Gitichu (Deceased)

In re Estate of the Late Eustace Tatua Gitichu (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 8712 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Succession Cause 1270 of 2002

Judge

HK Chemitei

The High Court declined to consolidate two succession causes or disqualify counsel, but rectified the grant to remove a deceased administrator and set the matter for hearing.

• Estate Administration
• Grant Confirmation
• Consolidation Of Succession Causes
• Conflict Of Interest
• Intermeddling With Estate
• Succession-cause

Republic v Oketch & 4 others; Wamaitha (Respondent)

Republic v Oketch & 4 others; Wamaitha (Respondent) [2025] KEHC 8250 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Case E011 of 2025

Judge

PN Gichohi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide evidence of an advocate-client relationship between the Respondent and any of the accused persons. There was no proof that confidential information was shared or that the Respondent's conduct prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. The allegations of conflict of interest, improper inducement, and lack of firm registration were unsubstantiated. The court reaffirmed that both accused and victims have the right to legal representation of their choice, and that disqualification of an advocate requires clear evidence of conflict of inte…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Advocate Disqualification
• Watching Brief
• Right To Counsel
• Fair Trial Rights

Bundotich v Rotich

Bundotich v Rotich [2025] KEELC 4615 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2024

Judge

L Waithaka

The Environment and Land Court dismissed an appeal over competing claims to land, upholding the respondent’s prior equitable interest and the trial court’s counterclaim orders.

• Land Sale Agreements
• Constructive Trust
• Title Registration
• Breach Of Contract
• Succession And Land
• Conflict Of Interest

Larsen v Mbugua

Larsen v Mbugua [2025] KEHC 8327 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 282 of 2018

Judge

JN Mulwa

The court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate any real or perceivable conflict of interest or misconduct by the firm of Kaplan and Stratton Advocates that would warrant their recusal from representing the Respondent. The allegations made by the Applicant were deemed spurious, unsubstantiated, and lacking in evidentiary support. The court emphasized that the right to counsel of one's choice is constitutionally protected and that removal of an advocate is an extraordinary remedy only justified by clear evidence of conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality, or serious misconduct…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Counsel
• Conflict Of Interest
• Advocate Ethics
• Right To Counsel

Kinyanjui v Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited

Kinyanjui v Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited [2025] KEELRC 1661 (KLR)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Cause 639 of 2018

Judge

B Ongaya

The court found that the claimant was accorded due process as required by section 41 of the Employment Act, including notice of allegations, opportunity to respond, disciplinary hearing, and appeal. The respondent established valid and fair reasons for termination, specifically the claimant's conflict of interest and unauthorized issuance of a letter to a non-customer, both contrary to the respondent's Code of Conduct. The claimant admitted culpability in his appeal and did not dispute the reasons for termination, only pleading for leniency. The court held that the termination was not harsh o…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Termination
• Disciplinary Process
• Conflict Of Interest
• Employment Contracts
• Remedies For Dismissal

Mukabi v Program for Apppropriate Technology in Health (PATH) Kenya

Mukabi v Program for Apppropriate Technology in Health (PATH) Kenya [2025] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Employment and Labour Relations Cause E428 of 2021

Judge

HS Wasilwa

The court found that while the claimant breached the respondent's conflict of interest and staffing policies by failing to disclose his prior relationship with Ms. Owoko, participating in her hiring, and supervising her, the disciplinary process followed by the respondent was procedurally flawed. The claimant was denied a fair opportunity to call witnesses or cross-examine, and the process appeared premeditated, with the respondent issuing a show cause letter and scheduling a hearing in the same communication. The court held that the respondent failed to adhere to the requirements of procedur…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Termination
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Conflict Of Interest
• Workplace Relationships
• Procedural Fairness

Imperial Bank Limited (In Receivership) & another v Popat & 18 others

Imperial Bank Limited (In Receivership) & another v Popat & 18 others [2025] KECA 1013 (KLR)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Appeal E395 of 2017

Judges

W Karanja, LA Achode, GV Odunga

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to establish a factual basis for disqualifying the law firms from representing the respondents. The court found that mere listing of a law firm as a legal advisor or on a panel of advocates, without more, does not justify interference with an advocate's representation. The appellants did not demonstrate that any confidential information relevant to the present suit was imparted to the law firms, nor did they show that such information was likely to be used to their detriment. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Advocate Disqualification
• Fiduciary Duties
• Confidential Information
• Banking Regulation
• Professional Ethics