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 set aside an order made without proper service, restored the earlier stay-related orders, and dismissed contempt and mandamus relief.
The court granted mandamus compelling Nairobi County to pay a judgment debt and taxed costs, rejecting lack of budgetary allocation as a defence.
The High Court allowed judicial review and issued mandamus to compel boundary determination for parcels 857 and 958, finding the matter was not stale.
The High Court dismissed a constitutional petition challenging closure of a bar in Marsabit, holding that the petitioner lacked the required liquor licence and the enforcement was lawful.
The High Court struck out a constitutional petition over an electricity disconnection dispute, holding the matter should first go through EPRA, the Energy Tribunal, police, or EACC where appropriate.
Ochieng & another v Managing Director, Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5328 (KLR) (21 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Applicants satisfied the requirements for mandamus because they held a valid, unsatisfied decree, had obtained and served the requisite Certificate of Order against the Government, and the public officers responsible for payment had failed to discharge their statutory duty. The 1st Respondent’s excuses failed: budgetary allocation was not a legal defence, the conditional stay had lapsed when the required deposit was not made, and apportionment could not be imposed in judicial review on a joint and several decree. Mandamus therefore issued against all Respondents for full payment.
Source excerpt
Awino v Institute of Quantity Surveyors of Kenya & 3 others (Petition E041 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13048 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court held that the Petitioner had locus standi, but the petition failed because it was premature and not justiciable: the Petitioner had not exhausted the statutory disciplinary mechanisms under the Architects and Quantity Surveyors framework, and the ODPP could not be compelled to investigate where that function lies with the police. As a result, no enforceable constitutional grievance had crystallized against the respondents warranting mandamus or constitutional relief.
Source excerpt
Dungani v Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services & 3 others (Judicial Review E015 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 12760 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Director had a mandatory statutory duty under WIBA to inquire into and determine the applicant's work injury claim once the alleged accident was brought to his knowledge, and that duty was not suspended by the pendency of a separate employment dispute or by the employer's refusal to complete the DOSH 1 form. However, mandamus could compel performance of the duty only, not the issuance of a specific compensation award. Accordingly, the court compelled the Director to investigate and determine the claim within a set period, but declined to order a fixed award of compensation.
Source excerpt
Republic v Director of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Said (Ex parte) (Application E007 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12665 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Judgment)
The respondents retained custody and control of the motor vehicle at Nyali Police Station but offered no lawful basis for its more than two-year detention, no charge, no forfeiture or other proceedings, and no evidence supporting the assertion that KRA was responsible. The applicant proved ownership and a valid NTSA authorisation permit. The continued detention was therefore arbitrary and unreasonable, infringing Articles 40 and 47, and mandamus properly issued to compel unconditional release of the vehicle.
Source excerpt
Ngungi & another v Kanyi & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E073 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5193 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the judicial review proceedings concerned the legality and procedural propriety of the administrative decision dated 7th August 2025, while the other suits concerned ownership, title, trespass, and adverse possession over the property. The issues and remedies were different, there was no substantial overlap, and a determination in this suit would not directly affect the earlier matters; therefore Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act did not apply.
Source excerpt
Explore more
