Esheria Kenya Case Law
Sign in
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Kenya Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Kenya case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Kenya decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12928 (KLR)

Dore & 3 others v African Express Airways (Kenya) Ltd & 3 others

Dore & 3 others v African Express Airways (Kenya) Ltd & 3 others (Commercial Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12928 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (13 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Commercial Case E006 of 2025
Judge
["PM Mulwa"]

The Plaintiffs failed to prove contempt because there was no clear evidence of personal service or deliberate disobedience by Ahmed Rashid Jibril, and the requested reinstatement order would impermissibly determine disputed substantive shareholding and directorship issues at the interlocutory stage. By contrast, the 1st Defendant’s proposed amendment and counterclaim were allowed because they arose from the same transaction, were sought before full hearing, and caused no irreparable prejudice. The security for costs application failed because the 1st Defendant presented no concrete evidence t…

Source excerpt

  • Contempt proceedings
  • Personal service and knowledge of court orders
  • Leave to amend pleadings
  • Counterclaim
  • Security for costs
  • Access to justice
Read case analysis
Contract law [2026] SCC 192 (KLR)

Makasoma v Dondi & another

Makasoma v Dondi & another (Commercial Case E4168 of 2026) [2026] SCC 192 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E4168 of 2026
Judge
["GW Kiamah"]

The claimant failed to prove that the respondents did not perform, because delivery notes showed substantial delivery and receipt of the fabricated items and the claimant did not challenge them. The evidence also showed both parties accepted an outstanding balance of Kshs. 100,000/= payable upon completion, and the claimant’s own WhatsApp messages did not establish incomplete works. The respondents, however, failed to prove storage charges with supporting records or contractual basis, so only the balance of Kshs. 100,000/= was awarded on the counterclaim.

Source excerpt

  • Breach of contract
  • Payment for fabricated goods
  • Counterclaim
  • Storage charges
  • Burden of proof
  • Standard of proof
Read case analysis
Environment and land law [2026] KEELC 5250 (KLR)

Akoth v Mwatsami

Akoth v Mwatsami (Environment and Land Case 6 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 5250 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case 6 of 2018
Judge
["A Ombwayo"]

The court found the charge document valid and accepted that the defendant’s father had executed the charge, but held that there was no evidence of service of the mandatory statutory notices, no proof of advertisement or public auction, and no evidence of valuation before sale. Because the due process for sale was not complied with, the alleged sale was irregular and the plaintiff’s claim failed while the counterclaim succeeded.

Source excerpt

  • Trespass
  • Eviction
  • Charge over land
  • Statutory notice
  • Power of sale
  • Public auction
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5217 (KLR)

Mutea v Halake & 2 others

Mutea v Halake & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5217 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2026
Judge
["JO Mboya"]

The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove the root of his title or the legality of the certificate of lease, and therefore could not establish ownership or trespass. The trial court correctly applied the law on burden of proof and title to land. However, the finding that the respondents proved their counterclaim was left undisturbed only in part, and the appellate court clarified that the respondents had not proved ownership merely through council minutes. The appeal was dismissed, with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Source excerpt

  • Title to land
  • Root of title
  • Trespass to land
  • Mesne profits
  • First appeal re-evaluation
  • Burden and standard of proof
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5225 (KLR)

Thuranira & 7 others v Wamiti & 13 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2024 & Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025 (Consolidated))

Thuranira & 7 others v Wamiti & 13 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2024 & Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 5225 (KLR) (4 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2024
Judge
["JO Mboya"]

The plaintiffs failed because they did not concede the counterclaimers' title, instead attacked the alleged fraudulent origin of the land, which destroyed the adverse possession claim; they also failed to strictly prove fraud. The counterclaimers proved valid registered title to the subdivided parcels, and their evidence was uncontroverted. The court therefore upheld the counterclaimers' ownership, ordered vacant possession and injunctive relief, and awarded damages for trespass.

Source excerpt

  • Consolidated suits
  • Adverse possession
  • Fraud in land registration
  • Title to land
  • Eviction
  • Permanent injunction
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 4990 (KLR)

Mission Sos International Incorporated v Mission Sos Africa Inc & 3 others

Mission Sos International Incorporated v Mission Sos Africa Inc & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E012 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4990 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case E012 of 2023
Judge
["MN Mwanyale"]

The court found that the Plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the purchase monies and development funds originated from its donor funding, but the Defendants' failure to honour the represented leadership arrangement and their retention of the properties amounted to unjust enrichment. The court held that the factual matrix justified a constructive trust, not merely a resulting trust, and that this equitable interest could defeat the registered title and support transfer and injunctive relief.

Source excerpt

  • Constructive trust
  • Resulting trust
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Registered title
  • Burden of proof
  • Fraud allegations
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KECA 1662 (KLR)

Oisebe v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd

Oisebe v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd (Civil Appeal E166 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1662 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal E166 of 2021
Judge
["MS Asike-Makhandia", "EC Mwita", "B Ongaya"]

The appeal failed because the appellant did not demonstrate any legal error by the first appellate court. The Court held that general damages were not recoverable for the breach-of-contract claim, the alleged business losses and overpayment were special damages that were not strictly proved, the 50:50 treatment of the counterclaim was a fair allocation on the evidence, and the cross appeal was incompetent because it was filed out of time without leave.

Source excerpt

  • Breach of contract
  • Electricity disconnection
  • Special damages
  • General damages
  • Counterclaim
  • Cross-appeal filed out of time
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5146 (KLR)

Gichohi & another v Bajuun Properties Ltd & 2 others

Gichohi & another v Bajuun Properties Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E049 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5146 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case E049 of 2023
Judge
["TW Murigi"]

The court held that the county planning approvals and the NEMA EIA licence were valid only for L.R. Nos. 104/228 and 104/229, because no documentary evidence showed any valid extension of those approvals to L.R. Nos. 104/230 and 104/231, and no amalgamation number or completed amalgamation process was proved. Public participation was adequate for the parcels actually covered by the approvals, but it did not lawfully validate development on the parcels outside that approval scope. Since the plaintiffs proved a genuine structural risk from demolition of L.R. No. 104/231 and the approvals did no…

Source excerpt

  • Development approvals
  • Environmental impact assessment licence
  • Public participation
  • Change of user
  • Permanent injunction
  • Structural impact of demolition
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] SCC 187 (KLR)

Shiret v Mureithi & another

Shiret v Mureithi & another (Commercial Case E696 of 2025) [2026] SCC 187 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Small Claims Court
Case number
Commercial Case E696 of 2025
Judge
["ME Aligula"]

The Claimant failed to prove that she advanced Kshs. 298,500 to the Respondents or that she had authority to recover any alleged group loan in her personal capacity. The evidence showed inconclusive and reciprocal money transfers, no clear nexus with the 2nd Respondent, and no reliable reconciliation of the claimed sum. The counterclaim succeeded only to the limited extent proved by the 1st Respondent’s statement, namely excess payment of Kshs. 93,800.60, while the damages limb failed for want of proof.

Source excerpt

  • Burden of proof
  • Evidence evaluation
  • Counterclaim
  • Privity of contract
  • Self-help group transactions
  • M-pesa statement evidence
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5135 (KLR)

Mwega v Kailutha & 4 others

Mwega v Kailutha & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5135 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Case E015 of 2021
Judge
["JO Mboya"]

The plaintiff proved a lawful root of title through purchase from persons shown to be the registered proprietors’ successors, completion of adjudication and transfer, and issuance of title. The defendants produced no credible evidence of fraud, no documentary basis for ownership, and no valid objection or title chain. Their reliance on ancestral occupation, appellate proceedings to which the parties were not privy, and adverse possession raised only in submissions failed. The suit property therefore belonged to the plaintiff, the defendants were trespassers, and the counterclaim collapsed.

Source excerpt

  • Title dispute
  • Root of title
  • Fraudulent registration allegations
  • Trespass
  • Injunction
  • Eviction
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.