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
Vio Tech Ltd v Upperhill Chambers Ltd & another [2025] KECA 698 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal refused certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, holding that no issue of general public importance was shown.
Mwakima v Solfin Solutions Limited [2025] KEHC 4589 (KLR)
The High Court at Voi dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award and allowed enforcement, finding no proven statutory ground under the Arbitration Act.
SMB Bank (Kenya) Limited v Afrasia Bank Limited [2025] KECA 386 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal struck out an appeal over a bank deposit dispute, holding it lacked jurisdiction because no valid leave or express right of second appeal existed.
Agro-Chemical and Food Company Limited v Edon Consultants International Limited [2025] KEHC 17045 (KLR)
The High Court allowed enforcement of an arbitral award, finding the applicant had met the statutory requirements and rejecting the respondent’s public policy and insurance-based objections.
Agro-Chemical and Food Company Limited v Edon Consultants International Limited [2025] KEHC 1956 (KLR)
The High Court adopted an arbitral award as judgment, rejecting a public policy objection based on the respondent’s insurance cover and refusing a further stay.
Semo v Ricosam Engineering Limited [2024] KEHC 14054 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's grounds for challenging the arbitral award, except for the allegation of conflict with public policy, amounted to an impermissible invitation to sit on appeal over the arbitrator's factual and legal findings, contrary to Section 32A of the Arbitration Act. The only ground open for consideration was whether the award was contrary to public policy. The applicant failed to specify or prove which works were incomplete, did not provide evidence of additional expenses or independent reports, and did not refer any dispute to arbitration or terminate the contract f…
Source excerpt
Mwai v CMA CGM (K) Limited [2024] KEELRC 2744 (KLR)
The court held that its jurisdiction to intervene in arbitral matters is strictly limited by the Arbitration Act. The applicant did not seek to set aside the arbitral award but instead sought a referral back to arbitration on issues the arbitrator declined to determine. The court found that the arbitral award was final and binding, and the applicant's dissatisfaction with the arbitrator's jurisdictional finding did not entitle him to further referral or court intervention. The court emphasized that party autonomy and finality are fundamental to arbitration, and courts cannot review the merits…
Source excerpt
Nanyuki Ranching Limited v Rockstocks Holding Limited [2024] KEHC 9220 (KLR)
The court found that the arbitrator, having determined that the agreement dated 15/12/2022 was valid and enforceable, was bound to enforce all its terms as agreed by the parties. The contract expressly provided that the initial deposit of Kshs. 70,000,000/- was non-refundable (clause 1.7), and that failure to pay the additional deposit excluded the requirement for a completion notice (clause 12.3). By ordering a refund of the deposit, the arbitrator ignored these clear contractual provisions and effectively re-wrote the contract, which is contrary to public policy. The court emphasized that p…
Source excerpt
Attorney General v N.K. Brothers Limited [2024] KEHC 7806 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed an application to review a ruling made under section 35 of the Arbitration Act, holding that the Act does not provide for review.
Republic v President, Law Society of Kenya & another; Match Electricals Limited (Exparte) [2024] KEHC 7225 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's application for mandamus was fatally defective and misconceived. The applicant failed to comply with the contractual limitation period for issuing a notice of dispute, as required by clause 45.3 of the contract, having issued the notice more than 90 days after the occurrence of the matter giving rise to the dispute. The court held that granting mandamus would be contrary to the contract and amount to rewriting the parties' agreement, which is against public policy. Furthermore, the applicant failed to state the grounds for judicial review in its statutory…
Source excerpt
Explore more
