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
Apa Insurance Company Ltd v Bukheit [2025] KEHC 9892 (KLR)
The High Court at Bungoma allowed an unopposed application for leave to file a declaratory or repudiatory suit out of time and closed the file.
Mutua & another v Thuri & another [2025] KEHC 9033 (KLR)
The High Court granted the first applicant leave to file a medical negligence suit out of time, finding the alleged negligence was only discovered after later surgery in India.
Republic v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Housing & 2 others; Musyimi (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Musyimi Kilonzo) (Ex parte Applicant); Muthoka & another (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of Mwangangi Muthoka) (Interested Party) [2025] KEELC 4654 (KLR)
The court found that the statutory six-month limitation period for seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings is mandatory and cannot be extended by the court. The applicant's motion was filed outside this period, and the court is bound by binding Court of Appeal authority holding that neither the Law Reform Act nor the Civil Procedure Rules permit extension of this time. The applicant's reliance on a persuasive High Court decision was rejected in favour of binding precedent. Consequently, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave or entertain the application, rende…
Source excerpt
Hank v Kinegeni [2025] KEHC 7703 (KLR)
The High Court at Chuka dismissed an application for leave to file a personal injury suit out of time, finding the six-year delay was not satisfactorily explained.
Wawira v Kyalo [2025] KEHC 7076 (KLR)
The High Court allowed an appeal, holding that leave to file a defence out of time did not automatically extend to a counterclaim filed out of time.
Chaudhri & Associates v Lady Lori (K) Limited [2025] KEHC 6863 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's reference against the taxing master's decision was filed out of time and that the respondent failed to follow the mandatory procedure of first seeking and obtaining leave to file the reference out of time through a separate application. The inclusion of a prayer for leave within the body of the substantive reference was procedurally improper and rendered the entire application incompetent. The court held that the procedural requirements under Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by omnibus prayers or…
Source excerpt
Kibe v Gitau (Suing as a Representative of the Estate of Peter Njoroge Gitau) [2025] KEHC 5056 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in law by failing to inquire into whether the respondent satisfied the statutory requirements for leave to file suit out of time under Sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The respondent's explanation for delay—misplacement of letters of administration by his advocates—did not constitute material facts outside his knowledge as required by law. The burden was on the respondent to demonstrate compliance with the Act, which he failed to do. Consequently, the order granting leave was null and void, rendering the suit and judgmen…
Source excerpt
Njoroge v Kimani [2025] KEHC 6389 (KLR)
The court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the appellate judgment. The appellate judge correctly outlined the procedure for challenging an order granting leave to file suit out of time, which is to raise the challenge at the trial of the suit filed pursuant to the extension. The trial court failed to address the challenge, and the appellate court properly determined the issue on appeal. The Respondent's application for review was therefore without merit, as the alleged error was not self-evident but rather related to the court's interpretation and application…
Source excerpt
Gikonyo v Wahome [2025] KEBPRT 158 (KLR)
The Tribunal set aside an earlier judgment, finding the tenant’s application prompt and raising arguable service and statutory-compliance issues.
Coastline Safaris v Maseki [2025] KEHC 2741 (KLR)
The suit was not time-barred because the appellant, who kept changing names, was the same entity as the original defendant, and the leave to file out of time was unnecessary given their consistent identity throughout the proceedings. The appellant failed to provide evidence to differentiate between the entities.
Source excerpt
Explore more
