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
Geonet Communications Limited v Safaricom PLC [2024] KEHC 882 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed Geonet’s suit against Safaricom, upheld Clause 3.7 of their interconnection agreement, and entered judgment for Safaricom on its counterclaim.
Juja Athi Travellers Sacco Society Ltd v National Transport and Safety Authority [2022] KETLABT 692 (KLR)
The tribunal held that a licensed transport operator was entitled to protection from unlicensed competitors and ordered their removal from the designated routes.
Prophetic Church Ministries of East Africa (Suing through its registered Chairman) Peter Lemmo Amugune v Africa Kenya Sabcrynnsk of Soi (Being sued through its registered Chairman) Abraham Shikuku , Africa Kenya Sabcrynnsk of Soi Praying & Healing (Being sued Thro’ its registered Chairman) Ronald Ambulwa , Green Yellow Cross Church Being sued through its registered Chairman) Jared Amusava & African Kenya White Star Sabcdcry of Soi [2019] KEHC 742 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a preliminary objection, holding that the suit was not res judicata and that the Trade Marks Act did not oust its jurisdiction.
Hunkar Trading Company v Total Kenya Ltd [2017] KEHC 84 (KLR)
Interlocutory ruling on whether Total Kenya could retain Hunkar’s LPG cylinders as a lien for disputed debts under the Exchange Pool Agreement.
Republic v Nairobi City County Government, Kenya Police Service Traffic Department, National Transport and Safety Authority & Attorney General Ex Parte South B Matatu Owners Sacco, Tel Aviv Travellers Limited, Akilla Transporters Limited & County Link Sacco Limited [2016] KEHC 8063 (KLR)
The court found that while there was no clear evidence that the 1st Respondent formally authorized the 1st Interested Party to operate from the non-designated stage, the 1st Respondent failed to take any steps to enforce the law and prevent the 1st Interested Party from operating in violation of Legal Notice No. 37 of 2008. The court held that the applicants and other operators are entitled to a fair business environment and that the Respondents have a statutory and constitutional duty to regulate public transport fairly and without discrimination. The court determined that the appropriate re…
Source excerpt
Explore more
