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
3 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
Banking and finance law [2026] KEHC 12322 (KLR)

Gulf African Bank Limited v View Power Communications Limited & another

Gulf African Bank Limited v View Power Communications Limited & another (Civil Suit E050 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12322 (KLR) (Commercial & Admiralty) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Suit E050 of 2024
Judge
["PM Mulwa"]

The Plaintiff proved that the 2nd Defendant executed a continuing guarantee securing the 1st Defendant’s facilities, and clause 2.01 preserved his liability notwithstanding any change in the borrower’s constitution or his cessation as director/shareholder. The sale agreement with the purchaser was res inter alios acta and could not discharge the guarantee without the Plaintiff’s consent. The Plaintiff’s cooperation in changing account signatories did not amount to waiver, variation or estoppel. The 2nd Defendant’s own evidence also undermined his exit-from-company defence. Judgment therefore…

Source excerpt

  • Guarantee enforcement
  • Principal debtor default
  • Continuing security
  • Privity of contract
  • Estoppel
  • Contractual interest
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 11955 (KLR)

Varma & 2 others v NCBA Bank Kenya Plc & another

Varma & 2 others v NCBA Bank Kenya Plc & another (Commercial Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 11955 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Commercial Case E005 of 2025
Judge
["BW Murunga"]

The applicants failed to prove that the consent of 29 July 2025 was varied by clear, objective agreement or conduct, and failed to establish estoppel or a prima facie case for injunction. The documents relied on, especially the 23 June 2026 letter, showed that the bank’s concurrence remained required and was not obtained, while the pleaded alternative timeline was internally inconsistent and already expired on the applicants’ own case. The defendant was therefore entitled to enforce its security and personal guarantees.

Source excerpt

  • Consent orders and variation
  • Statutory power of sale
  • Interlocutory injunctions
  • Estoppel
  • Personal guarantees
  • Chargee remedies
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12577 (KLR)

Sang t/a Kericho Technical Institute v Finmax Community Based Group & 3 others

Sang t/a Kericho Technical Institute v Finmax Community Based Group & 3 others (Civil Suit 20 of 2013) [2026] KEHC 12577 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Suit 20 of 2013
Judge
["TA Odera"]

The motion failed because the applicant did not demonstrate any new matter, apparent error, sufficient reason, or promptness justifying review of the restitution ruling. The capacity objection had already been determined by the Court of Appeal and could not be relitigated through review. Restitution under section 91 was proper after reversal of the decree, execution could proceed against the applicant as the admitted proprietor, and the summons under Order 22 rule 35 was only for examination, not committal to civil jail.

Source excerpt

  • Order 45 review threshold
  • Section 91 restitution after reversal of decree
  • Capacity of unincorporated associations
  • Execution against sole proprietor
  • Order 22 rule 35 examination
  • Civil jail and committal safeguards
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12316 (KLR)

Midland Emporium Ltd v Midland Hauliers Ltd (Under Administration) & 2 others

Midland Emporium Ltd v Midland Hauliers Ltd (Under Administration) & 2 others (Civil Case E007 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 12316 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Case E007 of 2022
Judge
["JM Omido"]

The valuation report was expert evidence whose evidential foundation had to be laid by its maker. Because DW3 was not the author and no lawful exception was shown to justify production by another person, DW3 was not competent to produce the report. Prior references to the report, silence at pre-trial, and estoppel did not cure that defect.

Source excerpt

  • Production of documentary evidence
  • Expert evidence
  • Admissibility of valuation report
  • Maker of document
  • Estoppel
  • Fair hearing
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5114 (KLR)

Tungani v Tungani & 3 others

Tungani v Tungani & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E038 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5114 (KLR) (22 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Environment and Land Court
Case number
Environment and Land Appeal E038 of 2024
Judge
["A Nyukuri"]

The appeal failed because the appellant and his family were themselves the authors of the unlawful sale and transfer scheme. Although the land was dealt with before succession proceedings and the resultant titles were irregularly obtained, the evidence showed that the appellant participated in, witnessed, and benefited from the transactions, received consideration, and later sought to undo them to recover the land. Equity, estoppel, and the constitutional and statutory protections against unlawful acquisition could not be used by the wrongdoer to defeat purchasers who had bought in good faith…

Source excerpt

  • Cancellation of titles
  • Intermeddling with estate property
  • Fraudulent subdivision
  • Indefeasibility of title
  • Specific performance
  • Estoppel
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 10781 (KLR)

Zenith Asteel Fabricators Ltd v Ndungu t/a Kenline Consultants (Small Claims Appeal E087 of 2026)

Zenith Asteel Fabricators Ltd v Ndungu t/a Kenline Consultants (Small Claims Appeal E087 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10781 (KLR) (Civ) (16 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Small Claims Appeal E087 of 2026
Judge
["D Mburu"]

The appeal failed because the evidence showed the parties were still negotiating and the contractual obligations were subject to unfulfilled conditions precedent, especially approval of drawings, so no valid and completed contract arose. In those circumstances the appellant could not rely on the non-refundable clause to keep the deposit, and retaining Kshs. 805,504 without performance would amount to unjust enrichment. The trial court was therefore correct to order refund of the deposit.

Source excerpt

  • Validity of contract
  • Condition precedent
  • Non-refundable deposit clause
  • Breach of contract
  • Refund of deposit
  • Illegality/public policy
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KECA 1385 (KLR)

Wahome & another v Maina & another

Wahome & another v Maina & another (Civil Appeal 446 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1385 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Appeal 446 of 2019
Judge
["F Tuiyott", "P Nyamweya", "JM Ngugi"]

The Court held that the surveyor’s report established that the appellants had encroached onto the respondents’ land and that, although the boundary defect originated from the earlier subdivision process and the respondents were not responsible for it, the appellants remained liable for the trespass and the resulting deprivation of use. The appellants’ remedy lay against their vendor, not by occupying the respondents’ land. The trial court’s award of general damages was therefore upheld, and the appeal failed on the merits.

Source excerpt

  • Trespass to land
  • Encroachment
  • General damages for trespass
  • Costs of appeal
  • Survey and boundary re-alignment
  • First appellate review
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 10002 (KLR)

Wincomp Services Ltd v Kurgat t/a Roshina Enterprises

Wincomp Services Ltd v Kurgat t/a Roshina Enterprises (Civil Appeal E104 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10002 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E104 of 2024
Judge
["BW Murunga"]

The appeal failed because the appellant did not prove supply of goods worth Kshs. 2,495,050.00; the credible evidence supported a supply value of Kshs. 1,515,200.00 only. Further, the respondent’s payments into the Mwalewa Stores account discharged the debt because the appellant’s director directed that mode of payment, Mwalewa Stores was linked to him, and the appellant was therefore bound by agency, apparent authority and estoppel. The trial court committed no reversible error.

Source excerpt

  • Privity of contract
  • Payment to agent/third party
  • Burden and standard of proof
  • Proof of delivery of goods
  • Estoppel
  • Appellate re-evaluation of evidence
Read case analysis
Commercial law [2026] KEHC 9993 (KLR)

Matu v Rubis Energy Ltd

Matu v Rubis Energy Ltd (Civil Appeal E210 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9993 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E210 of 2025
Judge
["F Gikonyo"]

The court upheld the finding that the appellant breached the dealership agreement and that termination was lawful. It held that Clause 9 was ambiguous only as to the commencement of interest, but that the better construction was that 4% per month compounded quarterly ran from the date of termination, not from the contract date. The court set aside the Kshs. 1,000,000 award because the appellant did not prove actual receipt of the funds and the burden had been wrongly shifted to the respondent. Because the appellant’s substantive case succeeded only partially and the respondent’s deduction of…

Source excerpt

  • Dealership licence agreement
  • Termination of contract
  • Security deposit interest
  • Burden of proof
  • Estoppel
  • Damages for breach of contract
Read case analysis
Company law [2026] KEHC 10156 (KLR)

Kanken Connect USA Board of Directors & 3 others v Kanken Connect Literacy Foundation & 4 others

Kanken Connect USA Board of Directors & 3 others v Kanken Connect Literacy Foundation & 4 others (Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10156 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court
High Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2025
Judge
["E Ominde"]

The Court held that although section 103 permits an application for rectification, this dispute was not a plain or uncontested case fit for summary disposal. The pleadings raised disputed issues of fact, including alleged misrepresentation, omission, and entitlement to membership and directorship, which required full trial and cross-examination. In addition, the interim injunction prayer was procedurally unsustainable because it was not anchored on a substantive suit. The miscellaneous application was therefore misconceived and bad in law.

Source excerpt

  • Rectification of register of directors and members
  • Miscellaneous application without substantive suit
  • Interlocutory injunction
  • Constructive trust
  • Estoppel
  • Unfair prejudice
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.