Kenyan case law
-
Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Limited (KETRACO) v Instalanciones Inabensa SA (Petition 17 (E024) of 2021) [2023] KESC 10 (KLR) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate why it should not bear the costs of the appeal.
-
Senate & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & 10 others (Petition 19 (E027) of 2021) [2023] KESC 7 (KLR) (Civ) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The Supreme Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to allow the filing of documents out of time and without leave due to the public interest nature of the dispute
-
Westmont Holdings SDN BHD v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others (Petition 16 (E023) of 2021) [2023] KESC 11 (KLR) (17 February 2023) (Judgment)
✦ The order for security for costs was unreasonable and impeded the appellant's access to justice.
-
Bia Tosha Distributors Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited & 6 others (Petition 15 of 2020) [2023] KESC 14 (KLR) (17 February 2023) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal is allowed, and the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal are set aside. The High Court orders are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal on priority basis.
-
Attorney General v Halal Meat Products Limited (Application 22 of 2016) [2023] KESC 9 (KLR) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to decline the applicant's record of appeal and his decision was not in violation of any law.
-
Okoiti & 2 others v Attorney General & 14 others (Petition 2 (E002) of 2021) [2023] KESC 13 (KLR) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The thirty days’ timeline for institution of appeals to the Supreme Court runs from the date of filing of the notice of appeal and transmission of the same to the court.
-
Shollei v Judicial Service Commission & another (Application 10 (E016) of 2022) [2023] KESC 8 (KLR) (Civ) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The Supreme Court was functus officio and could not re-open deliberations on its directions.
-
Wafula v Director of Public Prosecution & 149 others (Criminal Petition E032 of 2022) [2023] KESC 16 (KLR) (Crim) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The Deputy Registrar properly and judiciously exercised his discretion in declining to lodge the applicant’s petition.
-
Kampala International University v Housing Finance Company Limited (Petition (Application) 34 (E035) of 2022) [2023] KESC 5 (KLR) (27 January 2023) (Ruling)
✦ An arguable appeal was not one which necessarily had to succeed but one which ought to be argued by the appellate court. Imminent threat of loss of a considerably large amount of money could be termed as irreparable harm for the purposes of obtaining conservatory injunctive orders.
-
Saisi & 7 others v Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others (Petition 39 & 40 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2023] KESC 6 (KLR) (27 January 2023) (Judgment)
✦ Judicial review established the court's authority to hold the government as well as the subordinate courts and bodies exercising quasi-judicial authority accountable to the law.
-
JOO v MBO & 2 others (Petition 11 of 2020) [2023] KESC 4 (KLR) (27 January 2023) (Judgment)
✦ The appeal was certified as raising matters of general public importance. The Matrimonial Property Act (cap 152) was not applied retrospectively, and the applicable law was the repealed Married Women’s Property Act, 1882. Article 45(3) of the Constitution did not guarantee an automatic entitled to a 50% share of matrimonial property upon dissolution.
-
Wamwere & 5 others v Attorney General (Petition 26, 34 & 35 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2023] KESC 3 (KLR) (27 January 2023) (Judgment)
✦ The repealed Constitution applies, and the appellants proved violation of their rights and freedoms.
-
MNK v POM & another (Petition 9 of 2021) [2023] KESC 2 (KLR) (27 January 2023) (Judgment)
✦ The Marriage Act and Matrimonial Property Act do not apply retrospectively to disputes arising before their enactment. The MWPA (repealed) applies to all marriages recognized or unrecognized in law.
-
Senate of Kenya & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & 10 others (Application 7 (E013) of 2022) [2023] KESC 1 (KLR) (18 January 2023) (Ruling)
✦ The Supreme Court held that it had not been demonstrated by the applicants that the impugned ruling was obtained by fraud or deceit, is a nullity, or that the court was misled into giving its ruling on review under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented as per the guidelines set in the Outa case.