Shete v Commissioner for Cooperative Development [2025] KECPT 382 (KLR)
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Case number
Tribunal Appeal E001 of 2025
Judges
Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
The Cooperative Tribunal struck out an appeal as premature because no surcharge order had been issued, and upheld a preliminary objection on jurisdiction.
The court held that the application was procedurally defective as constitutional challenges to statutory provisions must be brought by way of a constitutional petition, not a miscellaneous application. The court further found that it was functus officio, having already determined the applicant's appeal on both conviction and sentence, and that the Court of Appeal had also dismissed the applicant's subsequent application. The court lacked jurisdiction to revisit the sentence or grant the declaratory relief sought. Additionally, the Supreme Court's decision in Muruatetu (2) clarified that manda…
Amwayi & 64 Ex Employees of Rolmil Kenya Limited v Kenya Engineering Workers Union; Rolmil (Interested Party) [2025] KEELRC 1734 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Miscellaneous Application E049 of 2025
Judge
SC Rutto
The court struck out a miscellaneous application seeking declarations, compensation, and damages against a union, holding the relief was substantive and required a proper suit.
Savali v City Oil Kenya Ltd [2025] KEELRC 1670 (KLR)
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Case number
Cause 462 of 2019
Judge
S Radido
The Court found that the Notice of Withdrawal filed by the Claimant was not effective in withdrawing the suit because there was no evidence that it was served on the Respondent as required by Order 25 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 and 2024 do not provide a specific procedure for withdrawal, so the Civil Procedure Rules apply. The requirement of service is a policy consideration to allow the other party to address the Court on consequential matters such as costs. Since the Respondent was not served and continued to partici…
The court held that section 78 of the Evidence Act does not require the person who takes the photographs to be a gazetted officer; rather, it mandates that the certificate accompanying the photographs be prepared and signed by a gazetted officer, with the relevant gazettement information included. The certificate in question was prepared and signed by Cpl. David Kipchumba, a gazetted officer, who received the photographs from another officer. The absence of device details or the fact that the taker was not gazetted does not render the evidence inadmissible, provided the statutory requirements…
Owners and Master and Crew of the Motor Tugs "Barbara" and "Steve B" v Owners and Master of the Motor Vessel “Joey & another [2025] KECA 909 (KLR)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Application E083 of 2024
Judge
KI Laibuta
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal where no notice of appeal has been filed. The filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional pre-requisite, and its absence is not a mere procedural technicality that can be cured by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The applicants' failure to file a notice of appeal means that there is nothing before the court upon which it can exercise its discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. The application is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In re Estate of Nelson Ngethe Nganga (Deceased) [2025] KEHC 5934 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Succession Cause E118 of 2022
Judge
A Mshila
The High Court at Kiambu struck out an application to remove cautions on estate land, holding the applicants had not first used the Land Registration Act procedure.
Watu Credit Co Limited v Matere [2025] KEHC 2608 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Case number
Civil Appeal E055 of 2023
Judge
REA Ougo
The High Court dismissed the appeal primarily because the appellant failed to include a certified copy of the decree in the record of appeal, rendering the appeal incompetent based on the Supreme Court's precedent.
The Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal out of time because the applicant omitted the date of the judgment sought to be appealed, making delay impossible to assess.