Kenya Case Law

Thiani v Kedong Ranch Limited & 6 others

Thiani v Kedong Ranch Limited & 6 others [2025] KEELC 5133 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025

Judge

MC Oundo

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The letter of offer did not meet the requirements of a binding contract under Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, and no proprietary rights in the land were demonstrated by the plaintiff. The allocation of land was done on a pro-rata basis according to shareholding, as disclosed in the offer and articles of association. The court further held that the application and suit were not res judicata, as the previous suit was struck out on technical grounds and did not address…

Source excerpt

• Injunctive Relief
• Shareholder Rights
• Contract Formation
• Res Judicata
• Corporate Personality
• Misjoinder And Nonjoinder

Lubanga v Wesonga & 4 others; Sewon Enterprises Limited (Nominal Respondent)

Lubanga v Wesonga & 4 others; Sewon Enterprises Limited (Nominal Respondent) [2025] KEHC 9907 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Petition E010 of 2024

Judge

BK Njoroge

The Court found that the Petitioner was unlawfully and fraudulently removed as director and shareholder of Sewon Enterprises Limited. The documentation relied upon for her removal was incomplete, irregular, and inconsistent with her known signature, and there was no valid or stamped share transfer form. The Registrar of Companies acted irregularly by recording these changes without proper supporting documentation. The Court held that Section 106 of the Companies Act does not bar claims based on fraud, as limitation does not run until discovery of the fraud, which in this case occurred in June…

Source excerpt

• Company Directorship Disputes
• Shareholder Rights
• Rectification Of Register
• Fraudulent Removal Of Director
• Limitation Of Actions
• Arbitration Clauses

Mwatibo & 7 others v Mramba & 6 others; Maungu Ranching (DA) Co Ltd & 3 others (Interested Parties)

Mwatibo & 7 others v Mramba & 6 others; Maungu Ranching (DA) Co Ltd & 3 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEELC 4828 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E007 of 2025

Judge

EK Wabwoto

The Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to commence and prosecute a derivative action under the Companies Act, as such jurisdiction is expressly vested in the High Court by statute. The Companies Act 2015 defines the 'court' for derivative actions as the High Court, and jurisdiction cannot be assumed by implication or by reference to the subject matter of land or company management. In the interests of substantive justice and to avoid penalizing parties for filing in a court of cognate jurisdiction, the proper course is to transfer the matter to…

Source excerpt

• Derivative Actions
• Company Directors Duties
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• Conflict Of Interest
• Shareholder Rights

Homebay Property Limited v Fan & another; Minxue (Interested Party)

Homebay Property Limited v Fan & another; Minxue (Interested Party) [2025] KEELC 4655 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Land Case E017 of 2025

Judge

CG Mbogo

The court found that the applicant, as a majority shareholder and director, demonstrated sufficient interest in the subject matter to warrant joinder as a necessary party. The court held that the absence of a company resolution authorising the institution of the suit was not fatal at this stage, as the articles of association had not been produced and pre-trial directions were yet to be conducted, leaving room for regularisation. The court also declined to strike out the suit or bar the applicant's legal representation, finding no compelling evidence of conflict of interest or procedural impr…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Company Authorisation
• Bona Fide Purchaser
• Conflict Of Interest
• Striking Out Suit
• Shareholder Rights

Thuo v Thuo & another

Thuo v Thuo & another [2025] KEHC 5181 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Suit E37 of 2024

Judge

HI Ong'udi

The High Court at Nakuru dismissed an injunction application as overtaken by events, but allowed a shareholder to seek leave for a derivative claim and granted interim asset protection.

• Derivative Actions
• Company Director Duties
• Shareholder Rights
• Temporary Injunctions
• Derivative-actions
• Temporary-injunctions

Masinde & another v Betting Control Licensing Board & 5 others; Ndungu (Proposed Interested Party)

Masinde & another v Betting Control Licensing Board & 5 others; Ndungu (Proposed Interested Party) [2025] KECA 685 (KLR)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Application E351 of 2022

Judges

DK Musinga, M Ngugi, GV Odunga

The Court of Appeal has residual jurisdiction to review its earlier ruling to prevent injustice where new facts, such as alleged fraud in a consent and clarification of the proposed interested party's shareholder status and standing of an injunction, demonstrate a potential denial of constitutional rights to a fair hearing and protection of property rights. The inordinate delay argument was overcome by the applicant only recently becoming aware of the relevant facts.

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Shareholder Rights
• Review Of Court Orders
• Locus Standi
• Fraud On Court
• Right To Fair Hearing

Chavda v Patel & 3 others

Chavda v Patel & 3 others [2025] KEHC 4670 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Suit E108 of 2024

Judge

PM Mulwa

A temporary injunction restraining the Applicant's removal as a director was not granted because the Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the removal process was unlawful at the interlocutory stage, and the alleged harm was not irreparable. However, a status quo order was granted to preserve the current directorship structure pending the determination of the main suit, as the most recent records showed the Applicant as a director.

Source excerpt

• Company Directorship
• Removal Of Director
• Shareholder Rights
• Injunctive Relief
• Board Meetings
• Fiduciary Duties

Muthoga & another v Kaiganane

Muthoga & another v Kaiganane [2025] KEHC 4335 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case E001 of 2025

Judge

EM Muriithi

The Court dismissed the application for interim measures because the dispute between the remaining plaintiff (1st Plaintiff, an individual) and the Defendant, both being members of the Company, was not covered by the arbitration clause in the Company's Articles of Association. Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, which allows for interim measures, is predicated on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement covering the specific dispute.

Source excerpt

• Company Directors Disputes
• Shareholder Rights
• Authority To Sue
• Arbitration Clauses
• Interim Injunctions

Gheewala (Suing as the Executrix of the Estate of Chandrakant Shamjibhai Gheewala) & 2 others v Gheewala & another

Gheewala (Suing as the Executrix of the Estate of Chandrakant Shamjibhai Gheewala) & 2 others v Gheewala & another [2025] KEHC 4273 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Commercial Case E075 of 2024

Judge

MN Mwangi

The court granted interlocutory injunctions because the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that the Extraordinary General Meeting of 17th October 2024 was not lawfully convened, specifically regarding the lack of evidence of proper notice to the 2nd plaintiff concerning his removal as a Director, thereby infringing his rights under Section 141 of the Companies Act. The court also found that damages would not adequately compensate the plaintiffs for this alleged breach of the law.

Source excerpt

• Company Meetings
• Director Removal
• Notice Requirements
• Injunctive Relief
• Shareholder Rights

Mwangi & 15 others v Njamuku & 20 others

Mwangi & 15 others v Njamuku & 20 others [2025] KEELC 2957 (KLR)

Court

Environment and Land Court

Case number

Environment & Land Case 503 of 2014

Judge

JO Olola

The titles issued to the 1st to 12th and the 14th to 21st Defendants were invalid because they were issued by a Probe Committee that lacked the legal mandate to manage the affairs of the 13th Defendant Company and subdivide and allocate its land. The Plaintiffs were the bona fide members holding a legitimate claim to the land based on prior allocation and occupation.

Source excerpt

• Company Membership Disputes
• Title Cancellation
• Fraudulent Land Allocation
• Injunctions
• Shareholder Rights