Kenya Case Law

Republic v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Weru (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Directorate of Criminal Investigations & 3 others; Weru (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E079 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 13189 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Application E079 of 2023

Judge

["EM Muriithi"]

The High Court held that an intermediary, counsel, and medical accommodations were sufficient for a fair trial, and allowed the magistrate’s trial to proceed.

• Fair trial rights
• Article 50 constitution
• Intermediary in criminal trial
• Fitness to stand trial
• Disability accommodation
• Certiorari and prohibition

Maleya v OCS Kangemi Police Station & another

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E284 of 2026

Judge

["WM Musyoka"]

The High Court declined interim injunction and prohibition against police investigations, finding the application had been overtaken by events and dismissing the motion.

• Injunction
• Prohibition
• Police investigations
• Prosecutorial discretion
• Overtaken by events
• Interlocutory relief

Ngungi & another v Kanyi & 5 others

Ngungi & another v Kanyi & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E073 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5193 (KLR) (6 August 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E073 of 2025

Judge

["MN Kullow"]

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

• Sub judice
• Section 6 civil procedure act
• Parallel litigation
• Administrative law remedies
• Certiorari
• Prohibition

Kiambu Club Ltd v Sports Tribunal & 2 others

Kiambu Club Ltd v Sports Tribunal & 2 others (Judicial Review E148 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12714 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E148 of 2026

Judge

["WM Musyoka"]

The Sports Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because Kiambu Club Limited was not shown to be a sports organization registered under section 46 of the Sports Act, had not transitioned under section 49, had no rules specifically allowing appeals to the Tribunal, had not agreed to refer the dispute to the Tribunal, and the matter was not an appeal from the Registrar. The Tribunal therefore acted ultra vires, and its ruling and proceedings were liable to be quashed by certiorari.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of sports tribunal
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Sports act section 46
• Sports act section 58
• Access to justice

Republic v Director General Kenya Maritime Authority & another; Zhejiang Hairong Ocean Fisheries Company Limited in Joint Venture with Everland Foods Limited (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Director General Kenya Maritime Authority & another; Zhejiang Hairong Ocean Fisheries Company Limited in Joint Venture with Everland Foods Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12008 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E002 of 2025

Judge

["M Thande"]

The court held that Zhejiang had locus standi because it was an incorporated legal entity and had proprietary rights in the vessels, and that section 974 of the Companies Act did not bar it from suing in Kenya. However, the verifying and further affidavits were fatally defective because they omitted the place of swearing, lacked translated identification of the oath administrator, and their annexures were not properly sealed and marked as required by law. Once those affidavits were struck out, the application was left without evidence and became incompetent, so the court upheld the preliminar…

Source excerpt

• Locus standi
• Foreign company capacity to sue
• Preliminary objection
• Affidavit defects
• Sealed annexures
• Access to justice

Republic v Public Procurement Regulatory Board & 3 others; Peesam Ltd (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Public Procurement Regulatory Board & 3 others; Peesam Ltd (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E197 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12126 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E197 of 2024

Judge

["JM Chigiti"]

The Court held that the Debarment Committee lawfully exercised its statutory mandate under section 41(1)(d) and Regulation 22, because Peesam was given notice and a chance to file a written response but failed to do so, and its separate judicial review filing did not substitute for that response or stay the proceedings. In the absence of a disputed written response, no oral hearing or seven-day hearing notice was triggered. The Committee independently verified the allegations with KAA, was properly constituted, and imposed the statutory minimum debarment period. The applicant therefore failed…

Source excerpt

• Debarment
• Procedural fairness
• Oral hearing requirement
• Written response under regulation 22
• Lawfulness of evidence
• Rationality and proportionality

Republic v County Registrar, Rachuonyo & 4 others

Republic v County Registrar, Rachuonyo & 4 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5071 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2026

Judge

["JW Wanyonyi"]

The application failed because prohibition cannot restrain completed acts, the register had already been closed and titles issued before the suit, and mandamus could not be used to cancel titles or determine ownership rights of non-parties. The applicants also failed to prove a clear unperformed statutory duty or lawful refusal by the Land Registrar, and the relief sought required substantive adjudication beyond judicial review.

Source excerpt

• Prohibition
• Mandamus
• Rectification of register
• Cancellation of titles
• Fair hearing
• Natural justice

Nyapola v Nairobi City County Revenue Authority & 2 others

Nyapola v Nairobi City County Revenue Authority & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E033 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2296 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Judicial Review Application E033 of 2026

Judge

["M Mbarũ"]

The 1st respondent lacked the legal mandate to advertise and initiate recruitment for county public service positions because that function is reserved to the County Public Service Board under Article 235 of the Constitution and section 57 of the County Government Act. Withdrawal of the advertisement did not cure the illegality, and the proposed secondment arrangement could not lawfully circumvent the Board’s exclusive mandate. The impugned actions were ultra vires and justified certiorari and prohibition.

Source excerpt

• County public service recruitment
• Ultra vires action
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Mandamus
• Legitimate expectation

Republic v Principal Secretary, State Department for Internal Security & National Administration & 5 others; Osman (Ex parte Applicant)

Republic v Principal Secretary, State Department for Internal Security & National Administration & 5 others; Osman (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2206 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment)

Court

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Case number

Judicial Review Application E001 of 2026

Judge

["M Mbarũ"]

The ex parte applicant's motion failed because judicial review could not be used to contest a recruitment process on facts unsupported by disclosure, and the application was undermined by material non-disclosure: the interested party had already been appointed and had assumed office before the interim orders were obtained. The age criterion attacked by the applicant was itself unconstitutional, and the academic qualification challenge was not substantiated. The court therefore held that the substantive judicial review reliefs were unsustainable and that the interim orders had been irregularly…

Source excerpt

• Appointment of chief
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Mandamus
• Standing
• Material non-disclosure

Haya & 2 others v Land Registrar, Kisumu & 2 others

Haya & 2 others v Land Registrar, Kisumu & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E022 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5045 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E022 of 2026

Judge

["CC Oluoch"]

The court held that the application was filed within time because the operative report was submitted on 12 January 2026 and the application was filed on 4 May 2026, which fell within the six-month limitation under Order 53 Rule 2; the applicants also raised arguable issues on jurisdiction and denial of a fair hearing, so leave was warranted, and stay was necessary to prevent the judicial review from being rendered nugatory.

Source excerpt

• Leave to commence judicial review
• Certiorari
• Prohibition
• Mandamus
• Stay pending judicial review
• Boundary dispute