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
Chepkoech alias Milcah v Chelugui & another [2025] KEELC 178 (KLR)
The court allowed the defendants’ application to stop an unlisted witness from testifying because her name and statement had not been filed and served.
Victoria Pumps Limited & another v Kenya Ports Authority & 4 others [2023] KEHC 23746 (KLR)
The High Court at Mombasa dismissed an application to review earlier orders, holding that review was unavailable because no new evidence or apparent error was shown.
Mwakalu & 4 others v Republic [2023] KEHC 1179 (KLR)
The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application, upholding the magistrate’s decision to allow a complainant to testify despite his prior presence in court.
KSC International Limited (Under Receivership) & 5 others v Bank of Africa (K) Limited & 6 others [2022] KEHC 10653 (KLR)
The court held that exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom during the testimony of others is not a mandatory requirement in civil proceedings but is subject to the court's discretion. In this case, each defendant had been sued separately and intended to call only one witness, with some defendants having counterclaims to prosecute. The court found that it would be prejudicial to the defendants to exclude their witnesses, as each had a distinct case to respond to. The court was guided by the principle that exclusion should only be enforced where a party calls more than one witness. Therefore…
Source excerpt
Mboku v Gikera & 2 others (all trading as Gikera & Vadgama Advocates) [2022] KEELRC 8 (KLR)
The court found that Tony M. Odera, as a former Head of Litigation and advocate for the Respondents, was privy to confidential and privileged information directly related to the defence of the suit. The evidence showed that he was instrumental in preparing the Respondents' pleadings, advising on strategy, and communicating with the Respondents' advocates. Section 134(1) of the Evidence Act prohibits an advocate from disclosing such privileged communications or documents without the client's express consent. The Respondents expressly stated they did not waive this privilege. The court held tha…
Source excerpt
Keroka Highway Service Station v Maurice Odongo Ogot [2022] KEELC 1721 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court held that a witness present during another witness’s testimony was not barred from testifying; the issue went to weight, not admissibility.
Francis Nyaga Nginyinyi v Kababi Kangangi & Kabare Farmers Co-Operative Society Ltd [2022] KEELC 1829 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court granted the 2nd defendant leave to appeal against two rulings, holding the motion was filed within time under Order 43 rule 2.
Mary Ngonyo Kiume v Charles Muisyo David,Winfred Wanjiku Maina & Machakos County Land Registrar;Exams Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd (Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2153 (KLR)
The court held that a witness who remained in court during another witness’s testimony is not barred from testifying; that irregularity affects weight, not admissibility.
CB v DON [2019] KEHC 4713 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the trial court correctly applied the law in disallowing the appellant to call a witness without a prior witness statement, as this would have prejudiced the respondent and amounted to trial by ambush. The court further held that the grounds of desertion and cruelty were not proved to the required standard, as the period of desertion was less than three years and allegations of cruelty and denial of conjugal rights were unsubstantiated. However, the evidence demonstrated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, as both parties had made attempts at reconc…
Source excerpt
Hassan Noor Hassan v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission [I.E.B.C], Mandera County Returning Officer (David Maro Ade), Ali Ibrahim Roba & Mohamed Ahmed Arai [2017] KEHC 2268 (KLR)
The court held that while the two witnesses for the 3rd and 4th respondents were wrong to have sat in court during the petitioner’s case in violation of the court’s directions, the petitioner was also at fault for not raising the objection promptly. The court found that since evidence in election petitions is by affidavit, and the affidavits of the witnesses in question had already been served on the petitioner, no unfair advantage was gained by the respondents. The only way the witnesses could expand their evidence would be during cross-examination, which was within the petitioner’s control.…
Source excerpt
Explore more
