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
The High Court dismissed a constitutional petition by former KAF officers over alleged 1982 coup-era torture and detention, holding the 40-year delay was inordinate and unexplained.
In re Estate of Kihanya (Deceased) (Probate & Administration 1752 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 11577 (KLR) (Family) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that it had limited jurisdiction in succession matters to assess whether concealment justified revocation under section 76, but not to determine title or enforceability of the alleged sale agreement, which was already before the Environment and Land Court. The applicant’s delay did not by itself defeat the claim, but concealment and fraud were not proved because competing claims had already been disclosed and some assets preserved. Revocation was therefore unjustified; instead, the proper course was to stay implementation of the confirmed grant only as to LR No. 11612/29 pendin…
Source excerpt
Nzuki & another v Musyoka (Environment and Land Appeal E043 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4995 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application for stay failed because it was brought after the period allowed for compliance with the judgment and after proclamation had already issued, without any explanation for the delay or demonstration of irreparable or substantial loss. The applicants therefore did not satisfy the mandatory requirements under Order 42 Rule 6, and the court dismissed the application with costs.
Source excerpt
Jackson & 3 others v Mwangi & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4881 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the review application failed because the alleged death of the 2nd respondent was not proved and did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record; the application was also brought after inordinate delay. The court further held that it was functus officio and could not re-open the merits of the judgment. The contempt application also failed because personal service was necessary in the circumstances, and the application was not otherwise merited.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Shariff (Deceased) (Succession Cause 2924 of 2003) [2026] KEHC 11425 (KLR) (Family) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the suit property formed part of the deceased's estate or that the administrator mismanaged the estate, and the unexplained twenty-year delay made the request for accounts stale and inequitable. The court therefore declined to reopen a concluded succession distribution.
Source excerpt
Ngugi (Suing on his behalf and that of other plot owners whose plots were annexed by Kamahuha Girls High School) v County Government of Murang’a & 4 others (Land Case E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4654 (KLR) (20 July 2026) (Judgment)
The court held that the former County Council made a binding written commitment to compensate the plaintiff and other affected owners with identifiable land, that the County Government inherited that obligation, and that failure to transfer compensation land amounted to a continuing breach. The plaintiff proved the obligation existed and was unfulfilled. However, because he filed no written authorities from other alleged beneficiaries under Order 1 rule 13, he could only litigate for himself. The defences of limitation, laches, exhaustion, and res judicata failed on the evidence.
Source excerpt
Mungai v Attorney General & 2 others (Petition 108 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 12093 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (15 July 2026) (Judgment)
Although the Petition was pleaded with sufficient precision, the Petitioner failed to prove the alleged unlawful arrest, detention, torture, or causal link to death on a balance of probabilities because the evidence was largely hearsay and uncorroborated. Independently, the 31-year delay in filing the Petition was inordinate, unexplained, and prejudicial, engaging the doctrine of laches. The Petition therefore failed in law and fact.
Source excerpt
Mwangi v Nairobi City County (Formerly Nairobi City Council) (Petition 166 of 2009) [2026] KEHC 9649 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (3 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant failed the legal threshold for review because the valuation report was not newly discovered evidence; she commissioned it before trial and therefore knew of it, yet did not place it before court. The application was also brought about 14 years late, far outside the requirement of promptness and beyond the limitation/execution period. The court held that allowing review would revive a stale claim, prejudice the Respondent, and undermine finality of litigation.
Source excerpt
In re Estate of Wachana (Deceased) (Succession Cause 45 of 1997) [2026] KEHC 9272 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that it had jurisdiction to interrogate only the process by which the grant was obtained, not to cancel titles or stay ELC proceedings. Although the Applicant raised serious allegations, the application came too late after long completion of administration, prior challenges had been left unattended by the deceased husband, and the equitable doctrine of laches made revocation an inappropriate exercise of discretion under section 76. The application therefore failed.
Source excerpt
Ngomeni Swimmers Ltd v Khonde & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E001 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1177 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant failed to justify the 86-day delay after its earlier appeal was struck out, offered no explanation for that delay, and therefore did not deserve the equitable discretion of the Court. The intended appeal was also not arguable because the ELC merely applied Rule 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order to an incompetent reference filed out of time without leave, which was a point of law. The motion for extension of time was consequently dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
