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
James Finlay Mombasa Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2024] KETAT 594 (KLR)
The Tax Appeal Tribunal dismissed a transfer pricing appeal, holding that the taxpayer failed to prove 2016 export prices to a related party were arm’s length.
Kaugi v Muchangi [2022] KEHC 11792 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the core issue in the appeal was a dispute over a land sale agreement concerning agricultural land, which falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court as established by Article 162(2) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act. The court emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or statute and cannot be assumed by the High Court in matters reserved for specialized courts. Since the dispute related to ownership and use of land, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Consequently,…
Source excerpt
Francis Mbugua Kamau and John Kioi Kamau (suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of Kamau Njoroge (deceased) v Saikimba Ole Lekishapui, Land Registrar Kajiado & Attorney General [2022] KEELC 1115 (KLR)
The court found the land sale void for lack of Land Control Board consent, dismissed the claim for transfer, and ordered refund of the purchase money with interest.
John Munyao Masila v Boniface Peter Musyoka [2020] KEELC 777 (KLR)
The court held that a 1-acre land transfer agreement over agricultural land was void for lack of Land Control Board consent, but the defendant could recover the debt paid.
Francis Gacheru Mwai v Kelvin Muchira Kariuki [2020] KEELC 2917 (KLR)
The court extended time for the parties to obtain Land Control Board consent for a sale of agricultural land, finding sufficient reason for the delay.
Sunpalm LimiteD v Mohamed Siaka Ali (Through Mohamed Shaibu Shosi-Personal Legal Representative), Issa Timamy t/a Timami & Co. Advocates, Stewart Madzayo t/a Madzayo & Co. Advocates & Chief Land Registrar [2020] KECA 909 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the transaction for the sale and transfer of Land Reference Number Kilifi/Jimba/669 was null and void because no valid consent was issued by the Land Control Board as required under section 6(1)(a) of the Land Control Act. The minutes of the relevant Land Control Board meeting showed the application was deferred, and the purported consent was not signed by the proper authority. Furthermore, the appellant was a foreign-owned company, and no valid presidential exemption under section 9(1)(c) was obtained to permit the transfer to a non-citizen entity. The court al…
Source excerpt
Samson Muriungi Mwirebua v Silas Kimathi Mutonga & Eric Mawira Mbae [2019] KEELC 2293 (KLR)
The court held that the petition failed for several reasons. First, the non-joinder of the Attorney General, Land Control Board, and Land Registrar was fatal because the issues involved public law and statutory mandates of these entities, which were not given an opportunity to be heard. Second, the petition did not meet the threshold for a constitutional petition as the petitioner failed to state with reasonable precision the manner in which his constitutional rights were violated, merely citing constitutional provisions without demonstrating specific infringements. Third, the challenge to se…
Source excerpt
Jones Mokaya v Edward Moenga Nyaanga [2019] KEELC 2694 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiff had acquired LR No. Central Kitutu/Daraja Mbili/1792 by adverse possession after a void land sale and long, open occupation.
In re Estate of Muriithi Nguga (DCD) [2019] KEHC 9653 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed an application to revoke a confirmed grant in the estate of Muriithi Nguga, holding that the applicant’s land claim was void, time-barred, and res judicata.
Joseph Mathenge Kamutu v Joseph Wainaina Karanja & Nancy Wanjira Wainaina [2019] KEELC 4737 (KLR)
The court found that the sale agreement between the applicant and respondents was valid under Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, as it was in writing, signed, and witnessed. The agreement required the respondents to apply for Land Control Board consent, which they failed to do, and there was no evidence that the applicant refused to sign application forms or that such forms were presented. The court held that the agreement was not voided by mere failure to obtain consent, as voidance only occurs if consent is sought and refused. The court further held that the respondents, having receiv…
Source excerpt
Explore more
