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
Massawa v Shop and Deliver Limited [2025] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)
The court found the employee’s dismissal unfair and discriminatory after an accident-related incapacity, holding that the employer breached fair hearing and procedure requirements.
Moffat & 14 others v Nthurima & 3 others [2025] KEELRC 2144 (KLR)
The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was not based on a pure point of law but was entangled with contested factual issues, particularly regarding whether the petitioners had exhausted alternative remedies and the process followed in amending the union constitution. The court noted that the issues of forged minutes and procedural irregularities required factual investigation and could not be resolved at the preliminary stage. The court further held that the registration of the amended constitution had already occurred, rendering some of the objections moot.…
Source excerpt
Wangari v National Police Service & 2 others [2025] KEELRC 2139 (KLR)
The court found that repeated, unwarranted transfers and harassment of a police officer violated constitutional and statutory protections, and granted declaratory and injunctive relief.
Kenya Karate Federation v Sports Disputes Tribunal; Shisia & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 10608 (KLR)
The High Court quashed a Sports Disputes Tribunal decision and sent a karate team-selection dispute back to the federation’s internal dispute body.
Chitiavi v Musyoka & another [2025] KEELRC 2154 (KLR)
The ELRC allowed an employment appeal, finding the claimant was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed and awarding compensation, notice pay, service pay, and unpaid salary.
Mbogo v Harley’s Limited [2025] KEELRC 2147 (KLR)
The court found the claimant’s dismissal was not redundancy, but it was procedurally unfair because the employer did not conduct a proper section 41 hearing.
Roadtainers (Msa) Ltd v Munuve [2025] KECA 1302 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that while the respondent was terminated on health grounds following a road accident, the appellant made reasonable efforts to consider redeployment and held a meeting with the respondent, his wife, and a colleague to discuss separation. The respondent signed a discharge voucher confirming receipt of all dues and waiving further claims, and there was no evidence of coercion, fraud, or lack of capacity at the time of signing. The court held that the discharge voucher was voluntarily executed and thus barred further claims for compensation. The appellant was not obliga…
Source excerpt
Brink Security Services Limited v Katenge [2025] KEELRC 2156 (KLR)
The court partly allowed an employment appeal, upholding unfair termination findings but setting aside overtime and house allowance awards for lack of proof.
Ongany (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Juma Ondenge - Deceased) & another v District Land Registrar (Nyando, Nyakach and Muhoroni) & 5 others; Bondo & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEELC 5400 (KLR)
The court found that the process by which the boundaries between the petitioners' land (Kisumu/Koguta East/585) and the neighbouring parcels (576 and 579) were determined was fundamentally flawed and unlawful. The Interested Parties and the 3rd Respondent (Principal Magistrate) did not follow the statutory procedure for boundary determination as set out in Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act and Regulations 40 and 41 of the Land Registration (General) Regulations, 2017. The process was initiated and executed through ex parte court orders without notice or hearing to the petitioner…
Source excerpt
Odhiambo & another v Kenya Medical Training College & another [2025] KEELRC 2100 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioners had voluntarily signed reinstatement letters that expressly set out the terms of their return to employment, including the surcharges and forfeiture of salary for the period out of duty. The dispute had already been settled by a consent order in a previous petition, making the current petition res judicata. The court held that the petitioners were estopped from denying the terms they had accepted and that there was no evidence of undue influence or constitutional violations. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to exhaust the internal grievance procedures p…
Source excerpt
Explore more
