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 at Kerugoya held that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case in a murder charge, and acquitted the accused at case-to-answer stage.
No-case-to-answer ruling in a murder charge: the High Court found the circumstantial evidence too weak to link Cecilia Maitha Nyaga to the killing.
The Environment and Land Court granted a temporary injunction to stop alleged unauthorised excavation and construction on an access road adjoining the Plaintiff’s land in Dagoretti/Mutuini.
Nyagowa v Olum & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5362 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal succeeded after the court held that the refusal of temporary injunction turned on contested co-ownership and succession issues that should not have been finally decided at interlocutory stage.
Republic v Barasa & another (Criminal Case E009 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 534 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The prosecution evidence did not credibly connect either accused person to the alleged cannabis. The testimony was inconsistent on who was at the scene, who was arrested, whether anyone was smoking, and how the recovery was made. A material witness implicated in the disputed recovery was not called. On the totality of the evidence, no reasonable tribunal could convict if the accused persons offered no defence, so no prima facie case was established and acquittal under section 210 CPC was inevitable.
Source excerpt
Institution of Engineering Technology of Kenya v Kenya Rural Roads Authority & another (Petition E023 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2422 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court accepted that its prior ruling had addressed some merits of the underlying dispute, but held that this did not amount to actual bias or prejudice. However, because the applicant was genuinely apprehensive and insisted it would not receive justice before the same judge, the court invoked the appearance-of-justice principle and recused itself in the interest of justice.
Source excerpt
Linturi v M'Ethingia (Civil Suit E005 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13122 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that it could not conclusively determine at the interlocutory stage whether the impugned political statements were manifestly defamatory or were political rhetoric requiring full trial interrogation, and therefore the applicant had not established a clear prima facie case; further, any proven reputational injury could be compensated by damages and the balance of convenience favored declining a blanket gag order that would improperly restrict political campaigning and expression.
Source excerpt
Republic v Nyamonge & another (Criminal Case E294 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 767 (KLR) (18 August 2026) (Ruling)
The prosecution failed to adduce evidence connecting the accused persons to the theft of the generator or showing that they had access to the key or the power house, and it also failed to prove the essential element of knowledge required under section 392 of the Penal Code. No prima facie case was established on either count, so the accused were not required to enter defence and were acquitted on count two under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Source excerpt
Kombelel & another v Kosgei (Environment and Land Case E086 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 506 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case because the evidence showed an unresolved boundary dispute and competing claims to adjacent parcels, with no land registrar report to confirm trespass. Having failed the first Giella limb, and with the alleged harm being compensable by damages, the application for injunction was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Kimani v Amolo (Civil Case E108 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 502 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case because the record showed a competing sale agreement over the same parcel and the same 1/8 acre portion, both allegedly from the same vendor and on the same date, creating a substantial factual dispute that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence. Since the first limb of Giella was not satisfied, the injunction could not issue.
Source excerpt
Explore more
