Kenyan case law
-
Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K) v Mahinga, MD Kenya Railways & 2 others; Retirement Benefits Authority & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Civil Case E113 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 13935 (KLR) (Civ) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The court certified the application as urgent and ordered the impugned meetings to be stayed until the issues are heard and determined.
-
Jubilee Insurance Company Limited v Bichanga (Civil Appeal 2 of 2017) [2022] KEHC 13915 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The Appellant's application for stay of proceedings was not granted.
-
Trailink Group Limited & another v Wamaiatha & 2 others (Civil Case E072 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14532 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The application is allowed, and a stay of execution is granted pending appeal, subject to the respondent paying the applicant part of the decretal amount within 60 days.
-
Njau & another v County Government of Nyeri (Constitutional Petition 17 of 2014) [2022] KEHC 13927 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Directions)
✦ The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition and the matter stands withdrawn.
-
Chemwor & another v RKS (Suing as the father and next friend to AR (Minor) (Civil Appeal E030 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14110 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal is partially successful, the judgment on liability is confirmed, but the award of general damages is set aside and substituted with an award of Ksh 600,000/-
-
In re Estate of Loyd Kimathi Miriti (Succession Cause 371 of 2015) [2022] KEHC 14875 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The grant issued to the applicant is revoked and the proceedings are terminated.
-
Balala v Nation Media Group Limited (Civil Suit 368 of 2011) [2022] KEHC 13961 (KLR) (Civ) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The court found that the defendant's publications were defamatory and that the plaintiff had established the two ingredients of defamation.
-
In re Estate of Philip Wachira Koigu (Deceased) (Succession Cause 883 of 2009) [2022] KEHC 13871 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The grant of letters of administration to the respondent and his brother is revoked, and the court orders the Land Registrar to rectify the register by cancelling any subdivision and dealing on the parcel of land and revert the title to the deceased for distribution.
-
Kaguongo v Kahuthia (Civil Appeal E018 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14330 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The court finds that the court made a mistake in failing to consider the applicant's submissions and that the same prejudiced the applicant.
-
Nyaga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E039 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14194 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are upheld.
-
In re Estate of Wilson Mwamba Nyamogo (Deceased) (Succession Cause 2217 of 2004) [2022] KEHC 14164 (KLR) (Family) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The grant of letters of administration is set aside and the application is reinstated for hearing.
-
Muturi v Awiti t/a Skigate Auctioneers & 2 others (Judicial Review E002 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14528 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The application for leave to apply for judicial review orders is dismissed.
-
SKC v Republic (Criminal Appeal 111 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 17116 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The court found that the prosecution proved its case as required in law and that the sentence should not be interfered with.
-
Ruriga & another (Both Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Isaac Ruriga Kariuki) v Murigi (Civil Suit 115 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14200 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The court finds the defendant liable for negligence and orders a shared liability of 50:50 for damages.
-
Mutunga v Republic (Criminal Appeal E112 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14560 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal is dismissed on count 1 for attempted delement, and the conviction and sentence are upheld. The conviction for assault and impersonation is quashed.
-
In re Estate of Anderea M’Ikiugu (Deceased) (Succession Cause 23 of 2005) [2022] KEHC 13891 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The court finds that the applicant has not demonstrated substantial loss and therefore denies the stay of execution and inhibition orders.
-
Kerosi Ondieki & Co Advocates v Transmara County Council (Miscellaneous Civil Application 96 of 2011) [2022] KEHC 14393 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The application for notice to show cause (NTSC) is withdrawn and the file is closed.
-
Republic v Nyawa & 2 others (Criminal Case 3 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 14685 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The court found that the ingredients of the offence of murder have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
-
Kioko v Republic (Criminal Appeal 22 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14379 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal is dismissed. The sentence of the learned trial magistrate is upheld.
-
OO alias M v Republic (Criminal Appeal E061 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14141 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The conviction is upheld, but the sentence is reduced from 15 years to 10 years imprisonment.
-
Gatuga v Robin Hurt Safaris (Civil Appeal 26 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 14529 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs, and a date is fixed for directions on hearing of the appeal.
-
Republic v Maganya (Criminal Case E009 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14138 (KLR) (19 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The accused is convicted of murder for the unlawful act that resulted in the deceased's death.
-
Kenta & another v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commissions (I.E.B.C.) & 3 others (Election Petition E001 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 13833 (KLR) (18 October 2022) (Ruling)
✦ The court grants limited access to certain election materials
-
Okoye v Republic (Criminal Appeal E072 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 14971 (KLR) (Crim) (18 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal is partially successful, and the appellant is to serve ten years less the pre-trial custody period, with concurrent sentences for the two counts of trafficking.
-
Mokungu v Republic (Criminal Appeal E004 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 15433 (KLR) (18 October 2022) (Judgment)
✦ The court held that it was not proper to charge the appellant with two offenses in the same count, and the evidence did not support the appellant's admission.