Kenya Case Law

Luseneka & another v County Assembly of Bungoma & another

Luseneka & another v County Assembly of Bungoma & another [2025] KEHC 8669 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E005 of 2025

Judge

REA Ougo

The court found that the computation of the three-year term for the Public Accounts and Investments Committee and the Budget and Appropriations Committee must be based on the date each committee was constituted, in accordance with Article 259(5)(c) of the Constitution and the relevant Standing Orders. The Speaker's interpretation, relying on the calendar year as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, was rejected as inconsistent with the constitutional and statutory framework. The court held that the Speaker erred in declaring the committees' terms lapsed and in appointing the Liaison Committee a…

Source excerpt

• County Assembly Procedure
• Committee Appointments
• Separation Of Powers
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Standing Orders
• Judicial Review

Law Society of Kenya & 3 others v Attorney General & 7 others; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 3 others (Interested Parties)

Law Society of Kenya & 3 others v Attorney General & 7 others; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 5719 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E307 of 2024

Judge

LN Mugambi

The court found that the issues raised in the consolidated petitions regarding the deployment of the Kenya Defence Forces under Article 241(3)(b) of the Constitution are neither novel nor unsettled, as they have been previously addressed by a three-judge bench in Petition 104 of 2019 and other authorities. The mere complexity or public importance of a matter does not suffice for certification under Article 165(4); there must be a substantial question of law that is unsettled or of significant jurisprudential moment. The applicants failed to demonstrate such a threshold. On the application for…

Source excerpt

• Deployment Of Military
• Separation Of Powers
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Bill Of Rights
• Joinder Of Parties

SBK v MK

SBK v MK [2025] KEHC 3355 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Family Appeal E052 of 2023

Judge

HK Chemitei

The High Court held that it was functus officio and dismissed an amended motion seeking recusal and interpretation of laws after judgment had already been delivered.

• Recusal Of Judge
• Functus Officio
• Appeal Process
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Children Act Provisions
• Functus-officio

Mwangaza v County Assembly of Meru & another

Mwangaza v County Assembly of Meru & another [2024] KEHC 9544 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E024 of 2022

Judge

EM Muriithi

The court held that the petition was moot as the impeachment process against the Petitioner had already concluded and the court had previously issued final orders. There was no longer a live controversy requiring judicial intervention. On the substantive issue, the court found that neither the Constitution nor the County Governments Act prescribes a minimum period before which impeachment proceedings against a governor may be initiated. The court reasoned that imposing such a timeline by judicial interpretation or by directing Parliament to legislate would be unconstitutional and contrary to…

Source excerpt

• Impeachment Proceedings
• Separation Of Powers
• Right To Fair Administrative Action
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Public Interest Litigation

Kiamba & 3 others v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & another

Kiamba & 3 others v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & another [2024] KESC 19 (KLR)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

Petition (Application) E004 of 2024

Judges

SC Wanjala, MK Ibrahim, N Ndungu, I Lenaola, W Ouko

The Supreme Court held that its appellate jurisdiction under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution is only properly invoked where the appeal arises from a Court of Appeal decision that substantively involved the interpretation or application of the Constitution. In this case, the applicants’ grievances centered on the forfeiture of unexplained assets under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), and neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal engaged in substantive constitutional interpretation or application. The mere reference to constitutional principles or rights, without…

Source excerpt

• Supreme Court Jurisdiction
• Stay Of Execution
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Forfeiture Of Unexplained Assets
• Right To Property
• Fair Hearing

Legal Advice Centre t/a Kituo Cha Sheria v Attorney General

Legal Advice Centre t/a Kituo Cha Sheria v Attorney General [2024] KESC 15 (KLR)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

Advisory Opinion Reference E001 of 2023

Judges

PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, N Ndungu, I Lenaola

The Supreme Court held that its jurisdiction to render advisory opinions is strictly limited by article 163(6) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Supreme Court Act to requests made by the National Government, a State organ, or a county government with respect to matters concerning county government. The applicant, being a non-governmental organization, does not fall within any of these categories and is not recognized as having locus standi to seek an advisory opinion. The Court rejected arguments for a broad or necessity-based interpretation, emphasizing that jurisdiction must be expr…

Source excerpt

• Advisory Opinion Jurisdiction
• Locus Standi
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• State Organs Definition

Haki na Sheria Initiative & 2 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government & 3 others

Haki na Sheria Initiative & 2 others v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government & 3 others [2024] KEHC 3015 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E001 of 2023

Judge

JN Onyiego

The court held that while the petition raises issues of rights and constitutional interpretation regarding citizenship by marriage for refugee spouses, these issues are not novel or unsettled in the Kenyan judicial system. The determination of whether a matter raises a substantial question of law under Article 165(4) is a matter of judicial discretion, and novelty alone is insufficient. The court found that similar issues have been addressed by other courts and that a single judge is competent to determine such matters. However, the court found merit in consolidating Petition No. E001 of 2023…

Source excerpt

• Citizenship By Marriage
• Refugee Rights
• Empanelment Of Bench
• Consolidation Of Suits
• Fair Administrative Action
• Interpretation Of Constitution

Gachuri v Attorney General & another; Kenya Judges Welfare Association & another (Interested Parties)

Gachuri v Attorney General & another; Kenya Judges Welfare Association & another (Interested Parties) [2024] KEHC 1632 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Constitutional Petition E0304 of 2023

Judges

EC Mwita, PM Nyaundi, LN Mugambi

The Court held that while the petition concerns judges' welfare and may appear to create a conflict of interest, the core issue is the interpretation of the Constitution, specifically whether the Salaries and Remuneration Commission's decision to stop judges' car allowance violates Article 160(4). The Court found that the doctrine of necessity applies, as recusal of all judges would result in no competent forum to hear the matter, leading to a miscarriage of justice and undermining constitutional rights. The Court emphasized that judges are bound by their oath to administer justice without fe…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Recusal
• Doctrine Of Necessity
• Judicial Independence
• Conflict Of Interest
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Alternative Dispute Resolution

Judicial Service Commission v Oduor & 5 others

Judicial Service Commission v Oduor & 5 others [2023] KESC 32 (KLR)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

Petition 18 (E025) of 2021

Judges

PM Mwilu, SC Wanjala, N Ndungu, I Lenaola, W Ouko

The Supreme Court held that section 23(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of courts to review decisions of the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board regarding both judges and magistrates. The Court found that the constitutional and legislative history, as well as prior Supreme Court decisions (JMVB 1 and 2), support a holistic and purposive interpretation that includes magistrates within the ouster clause, despite the absence of the word 'magistrate' in section 23(2). The vetting process was a transitional mechanism intended to restore public confidence in the…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Vetting
• Ouster Clauses
• Judicial Review Jurisdiction
• Transitional Provisions
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Public Bodies Costs

Aluochier v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 17 others

Aluochier v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 17 others [2022] KESC 77 (KLR)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

Petition 20 (E023) of 2022

Judges

PM Mwilu, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu, I Lenaola, W Ouko

The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the matter did not involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution as required by article 163(4)(a). The original grievance before the Committee and the High Court was not about constitutional interpretation but about compliance with judicial review procedure. The constitutional articles cited by the appellant were not the basis of the decisions in the courts below, and the issues on appeal had shifted from the original complaint to procedural matters. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction cannot…

Source excerpt

• Supreme Court Jurisdiction
• Judicial Review Procedure
• Interpretation Of Constitution
• Election Disputes
• Fair Administrative Action
• Sub Judice Rule