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
Ngula v Kuria & 2 others [2025] KEELC 4518 (KLR)
The court declined to strike out a defence and counterclaim for lack of a verifying affidavit, expunged late supplementary documents, and allowed amendment.
Geminia Insurance Company Limited v Swiss International Airlines Limited [2025] KEHC 7506 (KLR)
The High Court struck out a company’s suit for want of authority, holding that a verifying affidavit and suit institution required proper corporate authorization.
Ochanda v EON Energy Limited [2025] KEHC 7964 (KLR)
The High Court found that the absence of a written Board resolution authorizing the institution of the suit was not fatal, as the director who swore the verifying affidavit had ostensible authority to act on behalf of the company. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the director lacked such authority or that the Articles of Association were breached. The court held that challenges to authority should be raised and determined early in proceedings, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that the company acted properly. The trial court's findings on special damage…
Source excerpt
Nyachae (Suing as Attorney for and on Behalf of Martha Mwango Nyachae) v Nyachae & 4 others; Sansora Group Limited & 6 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 1131 (KLR)
The court will exercise its discretion to avoid striking out a suit on technicalities like a defective verifying affidavit, especially when the defect has been cured through amendment. A legal firm's appointment is considered valid until properly superseded by a resolution involving all relevant stakeholders. A suit against a party will be struck out if the pleadings fail to establish a reasonable cause of action against them.
Source excerpt
Gitari & another v Swaleh & another [2024] KEELC 7537 (KLR)
The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the 1st defendant was based on procedural technicalities, specifically the absence of a written authority from the 2nd plaintiff and failure to file witness statements with the plaint. These issues, while procedural lapses, do not amount to fatal defects that would render the suit incompetent. The court emphasized that under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, justice should be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The court further noted that the cited provisions by the 1st defendant were either inapplicabl…
Source excerpt
Aspire Limited v Zedka Technical Services Ltd & 2 others [2024] KEELC 6734 (KLR)
The court dismissed an application to strike out a suit, holding that failure to file a company resolution at filing was not fatal and could be cured by ratification.
Sugawara v Kiruti (Sued in her Capacity as the Administratrix of the Estate of Mutarakwa Kiruti Lepaso alias Mutaragwa Kiruti Lepaso alias Mutaragwa Kiroti Leposo and in her own Capacity) & 3 others [2024] KECA 1417 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that Magistrates' Courts do not have jurisdiction to determine claims of adverse possession, as such jurisdiction is expressly reserved for the High Court (now Environment and Land Court) under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The appellant's claim for adverse possession was therefore properly disregarded by the trial court. On the issue of bona fide purchase, the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of sale agreements, Land Control Board consent, or payment of purchase price and stamp duty, and thus did not establish legitimate acquisition of…
Source excerpt
Verjee v Attorney General & 3 others [2024] KECA 728 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal over a late verifying affidavit filed with a counterclaim, holding the defect was curable and caused no prejudice.
Diesel Inject Services v Shajand Holdings Ltd [2024] KEHC 4122 (KLR)
The High Court held that the absence of a filed company resolution authorizing the institution of suit is a procedural lapse that does not go to the substance or jurisdiction of the court. The requirement for a company resolution is intended to protect companies from unauthorized litigation, not to curtail access to justice. The court found that such authority can be ratified at any time before hearing, and that the respondent did not plead lack of authority in its defence, raising it only in cross-examination and submissions. There was no evidence that the suit was filed by an unauthorized p…
Source excerpt
Diesel Inject Services v Shajand Holdings Ltd [2024] KEHC 4902 (KLR)
The High Court allowed an appeal, holding that failure to file a company resolution did not justify striking out the suit and could be cured before hearing.
Explore more
