Sign in
Kenya Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Kenya Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
5 court collections
Last checked

Kenya decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Co-operative law [2026] KECOPT 327 (KLR)

Warui & 7 others v Mobimatt Investment Cooperative Society & 2 others

Warui & 7 others v Mobimatt Investment Cooperative Society & 2 others (Tribunal Case E372 of 2021) [2026] KECOPT 327 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

The Tribunal found that the 1st Respondent failed to complete the hostel project, lacked proper office and member registers, and had handled the project with insufficient diligence, causing avoidable frustration of the agreements. It therefore held the 1st and 2nd Respondents jointly and severally liable for refund of the principal sums paid and awarded each Claimant exemplary damages, while declining loss-of-profit and membership-fee claims. The 3rd Respondent was discharged.

  • Breach of contract
  • Refund of purchase price
  • Exemplary damages
  • Membership locus standi
  • Joint and several liability
  • Tribunal interest and costs
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] SCC 203 (KLR)

Miruwe v Oguk

Miruwe v Oguk (Commercial Case E4753 of 2025) [2026] SCC 203 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)

The claimant proved that she transferred Ksh 800,000 to the respondent's bank account in April 2024 for purchase of a motor vehicle, and the respondent failed to provide credible evidence that the money was received for another lawful purpose or that the vehicle transaction was completed; the claim for the principal sum therefore succeeded, while the separate demand letter charge was not proved.

  • Oral contract
  • Proof of payment by bank transfer
  • Burden of proof on balance of probabilities
  • Refund of purchase price
  • Costs and interest
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 5303 (KLR)

Ndung'u (Suing as the Administrator & Legal Representative of the Estate of Michael Ndungiu Wambugu) v Ngari & another

Ndung'u (Suing as the Administrator & Legal Representative of the Estate of Michael Ndungiu Wambugu) v Ngari & another (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5303 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Judgment)

The appellate court held that the sale agreements were void because they concerned estate property dealt with before lawful authority and confirmation of grant, but the appellant was not without remedy; specific performance could not issue, yet the trial court ought to have granted the alternative remedy of refund of the purchase price with interest. Costs were withheld because the matter was undefended.

  • Specific performance
  • Constructive trust
  • Intermeddling with estate property
  • Capacity to contract over estate property
  • First appellate court re-evaluation
  • Refund of purchase price
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2026] KEHC 12388 (KLR)

Mbii v Ng’ang’a

Mbii v Ng’ang’a (Commercial Case 330 of 2016) [2026] KEHC 12388 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

The dominant issue in the plaint was not title, use, occupation, or ownership of land, but alleged fraudulent receipt of Kshs. 6,000,000/= and a claim for refund and damages. The reference to a land sale agreement was incidental. Applying the predominant purpose test, the dispute fell within the High Court’s civil jurisdiction and not the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court.

  • Preliminary objection
  • Jurisdiction
  • High court jurisdiction
  • Environment and land court jurisdiction
  • Predominant purpose test
  • Fraudulent acquisition of money
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KECA 1542 (KLR)

Lakeview Investment Ltd v Ndege & 2 others

Lakeview Investment Ltd v Ndege & 2 others (Civil Appeal E528 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1542 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Judgment)

Lakeview failed to prove that it paid or tendered the full purchase price within the completion period and had itself acted in breach by subdividing and dealing with the land before transfer; specific performance was therefore unavailable. Jennifer was also in breach for failing to avail completion documents, but that did not entitle Lakeview to equitable relief. Since Lakeview lost its claim, it could not successfully invoke lis pendens. Al Ruhia was entitled only to the Kshs 2,650,000 admitted by Lakeview, and the dismissal of Lakeview’s case and the orders in favour of the respondents were…

  • Specific performance
  • Sale of land
  • Breach of contract
  • Lis pendens
  • Title to land
  • Refund of purchase price
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 4810 (KLR)

Wamuruh v Kinyua (Land Case Appeal E003 of 2025)

Wamuruh v Kinyua (Land Case Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4810 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Judgment)

The agreements were null and void ab initio because the appellant had no proprietary interest in the suit land when they were executed, so specific performance was unavailable; however, because the respondent proved payment of Kshs. 78,500 and the appellant acknowledged receipt, the trial court correctly ordered refund of that sum, and the appeal failed.

  • Specific performance
  • Refund of purchase price
  • Sale of anticipated inheritance share
  • Capacity to contract
  • Null and void ab initio
  • Appeal from subordinate court
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 4764 (KLR)

Motochi v Tsimonjela & another

Motochi v Tsimonjela & another (Environment and Land Appeal E047 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4764 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment)

The appeal failed because the 2nd respondent proved that he was the first purchaser, had paid the purchase price, was placed in possession in 2013, and had developed the land long before the appellant's 2021 purchase. The suit property was therefore unavailable for valid sale to the appellant, specific performance was not an available remedy for him, and the refund ordered by the trial court fully addressed his pleaded alternative relief. The trial court correctly protected the earlier equitable interest of the 2nd respondent and there was no basis to interfere with its findings.

  • Specific performance
  • Constructive trust
  • Proprietary estoppel
  • Double sale of land
  • Limitation of actions
  • Land control board consent
Read case analysis
Contract law [2026] KECOPT 292 (KLR)

Gathara v Stima Investment Co-operative Society Ltd

Gathara v Stima Investment Co-operative Society Ltd (Tribunal Case E379 of 2024) [2026] KECOPT 292 (KLR) (Civ) (6 July 2026) (Judgment)

The Tribunal found that the Claimant paid for specific plots after selecting them from the Respondent’s chart, the Respondent accepted the money, and no sufficient explanation was given for failing to deliver the plots or for delaying notice of unsuccessful allocation for two years. On that conduct, the Tribunal held that a binding contract existed and that the Respondent breached it, entitling the Claimant to refund of the purchase price with interest and costs, but not to fraud or mental anguish damages.

  • Breach of contract
  • Refund of purchase price
  • Specific performance
  • Oversubscription and balloting
  • Fraud pleaded but unproven
  • Mental anguish damages
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 4087 (KLR)

Kibukwoi v Mugo

Kibukwoi v Mugo (Environment and Land Case 298 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4087 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment)

The court found that although there was no written sale agreement, the evidence showed a common intention to sell one acre to the Plaintiff, full payment of Kshs. 200,000 through the deceased’s advocate, and a failure by the Defendant to complete transfer. Equity prevented the Defendant from retaining both the land and the purchase money, but because the Plaintiff had never been in possession and a refund would adequately compensate him, the proper remedy was repayment with interest rather than transfer or injunctive relief.

  • Sale of land
  • Specific performance
  • Constructive trust
  • Proprietary estoppel
  • Oral land sale agreement
  • Refund of purchase price
Read case analysis
Land law [2026] KEELC 4584 (KLR)

Irungu v Thiya

Irungu v Thiya (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E049 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 4584 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Judgment)

The appellant alleged fraud but failed to plead and prove it with evidence, including failing to call a document examiner or otherwise demonstrate forgery. The respondent produced documentary proof of a land transaction and supporting oral evidence from the advocate who drafted the agreement. On the record, the trial court correctly found no basis to disturb the transaction findings or the refund order; the appeal therefore failed.

  • Sale of land
  • Land transfer documents
  • Burden and standard of proof
  • Alleged forgery of signatures and photographs
  • Refund of purchase price
  • Appeal from magistrate court
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Kenya decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.