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
Mutua v Tripple Edge Media Limited [2025] KEELRC 2065 (KLR)
The court allowed an unopposed post-judgment application, confirming that no loan repayment was pending and that unremitted loan deductions totalled Kshs.560,000.
Akiba Bank Limited v Kenya Orient Insurance Company Limited & another [2025] KEHC 10699 (KLR)
The High Court interpreted a decree as using the Kenya shilling equivalent of USD 461,468.90 as at 2 July 1998, and allowed payment by instalments with conditions.
OMR Medikal Turkish Limited v Asterisk (K) Limited; MSM Medical Equipments Limited (Objector); Icon Auctioneers (Third party) [2025] KEHC 10662 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established a credible basis for summoning the respondent’s directors and company secretary for oral examination and production of financial documents, as they are privy to information necessary for execution of the decree. The court held that the company secretary’s resignation after service of the application did not absolve him from being examined on matters arising during his tenure. The court further determined that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for lifting the corporate veil, given the evidence of possible collusion and asset co…
Source excerpt
Otom (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Otom Agullo) v Commissioner of Lands & 4 others [2025] KEHC 9431 (KLR)
The High Court at Kisumu declined a stay of execution pending appeal, finding the judgment only dismissed the suit with costs and no eviction orders had been issued.
Otieno v Chemelil Sugar Company Limited [2025] KEELRC 1974 (KLR)
The court dismissed an application for a garnishee order nisi, finding no evidence that school account funds belonged to the judgment debtor.
Gatutha v Directline Assurance Company Limited [2025] KEHC 9398 (KLR)
The High Court held that the insurer was bound to satisfy judgments arising from a covered accident and to provide legal representation, but not to bar execution by judgment creditors.
Ondwori v Stewan General Merchants Limited & 2 others [2025] KEHC 9245 (KLR)
The High Court, having delivered its final judgment on 12th July 2024, is functus officio and cannot entertain further applications seeking to stay execution or order the release of attached property based on the applicant's intention to file a declaratory suit against the insurer. The doctrine of functus officio ensures finality of judicial decisions, and unless the judgment is set aside on appeal or review, it remains valid and enforceable. The mere intention to file a declaratory suit does not provide a legal basis to halt execution proceedings or to grant the orders sought by the applican…
Source excerpt
Mbwiria v Githire [2025] KEELC 4951 (KLR)
The court granted a conditional stay of execution pending appeal, requiring the appellant to provide a bank guarantee of the decretal sum within 30 days.
Winguards Security Limited v Mitema [2025] KEELRC 1739 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's delay in filing the appeal—almost one year—was significant but, upon considering the explanation provided, namely the confusion between two judgments and the applicant's mistaken belief that the decretal sum had been settled, the court was inclined to give the applicant the benefit of doubt. The court noted that the applicant's current counsel was not on record at the time of the trial and accepted that the mix-up could have reasonably led to the delay. Applying the principles from Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's guidance in…
Source excerpt
Cedar Pharmacare & 2 others v Onyango [2025] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants were entitled to deposit the decretal sum of Kshs 179,423/- in court as full and final settlement of the judgment debt, as permitted by Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, given the respondent's refusal to accept payment. The court found that no interest was awarded in the original judgment, and the respondent had not made a formal application for interest or review. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to interest on the decretal sum. The court also noted procedural irregularities but did not find them fatal to the application. The applicant…
Source excerpt
Explore more
