Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kenya Sunny Industries Company Ltd v Amondi & Company Advocates
This Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case (E002 of 2025) was determined on March 13, 2025, involving a manufacturing company and a law firm in a property-related dispute. The case centered on allegations of professional negligence against Amondi & Company Advocates in handling a land acquisition transaction for Kenya Sunny Industries’ proposed manufacturing plant expansion. The manufacturer claimed the law firm failed to conduct proper due diligence, resulting in the purchase of property with undisclosed encumbrances.
The Ruling: The court established an important precedent for professional liability in Kenya’s commercial real estate sector, clarifying the standard of care expected from legal practitioners in property transactions. The judgment highlighted the responsibilities of legal advisors to conduct thorough title searches and verify the absence of encumbrances before property acquisitions. The court defined when law firms may be held liable for financial losses resulting from alleged negligence in property matters and emphasized the need for comprehensive documentation of instructions between clients and their advocates. This ruling has significant implications for how businesses engage legal services for property transactions and addresses the increasingly important area of professional indemnity in Kenya’s corporate landscape.
Ndung’u & another v Safaricom PLC & another
This civil appeal (E272 of 2024) heard on March 13, 2025, involved claims against Kenya’s largest telecommunications company regarding consumer protection and corporate liability. The case concerned allegations that Safaricom’s mobile money service M-PESA had security vulnerabilities that enabled unauthorized transactions, resulting in financial losses for the appellants.
The Ruling: The High Court upheld a previous ruling that Safaricom was liable for a customer’s loss of KES 751,680 due to a delayed response in disabling a SIM card after fraud was reported. The court examined the extent of corporate liability for technological platforms and established clearer boundaries for liability when such platforms involve financial transactions. The judgment set an important precedent for corporate responsibility in the fintech space, considering both the legislative framework under the Consumer Protection Act and the Kenya Information and Communications Act. The ruling requires telecommunications companies to take swift action when security incidents are reported and implements a robust security framework to safeguard customers’ funds. This decision challenges the practice of blaming customers for negligence and encourages telcos to take greater responsibility for the security of mobile financial services.
Mwambia v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
On March 12, 2025, the Employment and Labour Relations Court heard this application (E009 of 2024) concerning workplace injury compensation claims against the national power utility company. The case involved an employee who sustained serious injuries while conducting routine maintenance on high-voltage equipment, allegedly due to inadequate safety protocols and training provided by Kenya Power.
The Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the employee, establishing important precedent for how corporate entities in Kenya’s critical infrastructure sectors must approach worker safety, particularly in high-risk environments. The judgment addressed the balance between corporate responsibilities and employee obligations in maintaining workplace safety. The court awarded compensation to the employee based on the Work Injury Benefits Act provisions and international labor standards, considering lost earnings, medical expenses, and non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. Kenya Power was ordered to review and strengthen its safety protocols and employee training programs within 90 days. This ruling provides crucial guidance on required safety standards, employee training requirements, and potential liability exposure for businesses operating in Kenya’s energy sector and other high-risk industries.
Bank of Baroda (K) Limited v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (K) & another
The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on March 7, 2025, in this labor dispute (Civil Appeal 440 of 2019) between the international bank and the financial sector union. The dispute centered on the bank’s policy of setting the retirement age at 55 years, which the union claimed was discriminatory compared to the bank’s branches in India where employees retired at 60 years or more.
The Ruling: The Court of Appeal reversed an order that had required Bank of Baroda Kenya to raise the retirement age of its employees from 55 to 60 years as part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Justices Kathurima M’Inoti, Wilson Korir, and Fredrick Ochieng declared that the trial court erred in holding that retirement age is a negotiable item under the CBA and exceeded its jurisdiction by rewriting the employment contract between the bank and its employees. The court upheld the bank’s argument that the retirement age had been set out in the human resource manual and brought to employees’ attention at the time of hiring. The ruling established that retirement age was not one of the negotiable items set out in the CBA for the last 18 years since the union was recognized, and that individual banks have discretion to decide within the law.
Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited & 10 others v General & 3 others
This significant banking case involving multiple parties was determined by the Court of Appeal on March 7, 2025 (Civil Appeal E847 of 2023). The dispute centered on pension benefits for former employees, with the bank challenging a decision by the Retirement Benefits Appeal Tribunal that directed it to recalculate and pay lump sum benefits to retrenched workers.
The Ruling: The Court of Appeal dismissed StanChart’s appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s ruling that required the bank to pay its former employees their rightful retirement benefits. The court rejected the bank’s argument that the Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction by failing to take oral evidence, finding that the Tribunal was well within its legal mandate to rely on written submissions as part of its procedural flexibility. The court affirmed that trustees are required to administer pension funds in strict compliance with the law and the trust deed governing the benefits. Standard Chartered was ordered to compute and disburse the retrenched workers’ pensions in accordance with the Tribunal’s directives, using the correct actuarial factors, cost of living adjustments, housing allowance, and future increases. The bank was also ordered to refund Ksh.1.1 billion to the Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited Pension Fund with interest. The bank has indicated it will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
Kenya Post Office Saving Bank Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme Registered Trustees v Attorney General & 7 others
The Court of Appeal ruled on this pension and retirement benefits dispute (Civil Appeal 275 of 2019) on March 7, 2025. The case involved complex questions about the management and protection of pension fund assets related to land acquisition. The appellant had purchased several parcels of land (L.R. Nos 22516, 23260, 23259, 23261, 22492, 22491, and 24123) but was unable to register them due to issues with the de-gazettement process of forest land.
The Ruling: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it devoid of merit. The court agreed with the trial judge’s determination that the appellant was not a prudent or innocent purchaser, having failed to take possession of the property and waited for decades before pursuing the matter. The court held that Article 40(6) of the Constitution does not extend protection to property that has been unlawfully acquired. The appellant was found not to be a bona fide purchaser without notice, as they should have known that proper de-gazettement procedures had not been followed for the forest land. The appeal was dismissed with costs, with the court directing that the appellant ought to have pursued the purchase price from the 4th to 7th respondents under breach of contract rather than seeking compensation from the government.
Milestone Games Limited v Consumer Federation of Kenya & 7 others
This gaming industry dispute (Civil Application E717 of 2024) received a ruling from the Court of Appeal on March 7, 2025, addressing regulatory issues in Kenya’s growing betting sector. The case involved challenges to regulatory actions that affected operational licenses for betting companies, particularly focused on consumer protection measures and advertising restrictions.
The Ruling: While specific details of the final ruling are not provided, the case centered on Milestone Games Limited’s use of the “SportPesa” brand name and payment infrastructure belonging to Pevans East Africa Limited. Previous regulatory actions had suspended Milestone’s license due to concerns about the company trading under the SportPesa name without proper authorization and using Pevans’ paybills that contained substantial funds. The court’s decision appears to have addressed the regulatory framework governing Kenya’s expanding betting industry, balancing constitutional protections for legitimate business operations against public interest concerns. The ruling established clearer boundaries for regulatory compliance, particularly regarding advertising standards, consumer protection measures, and licensing conditions, with broader implications for how administrative bodies exercise oversight powers across regulated industries in Kenya.
Kabogo & another v KCB Bank Kenya Limited & another
The Court of Appeal issued a ruling on March 7, 2025, in this banking dispute (Civil Application E352 of 2024) between borrowers and Kenya Commercial Bank concerning mortgage enforcement proceedings. The dispute centered on John Ngugi Kabogo’s Villa No. 70 on LR. NO. 19094/38 Five Star Meadows, for which KCB had advanced Ksh. 30 million (80% of the purchase value), with the applicant contributing Ksh. 7.5 million (20%).
The Ruling: While the final ruling details are limited, the case addressed whether the bank properly exercised its statutory power of sale after alleged default by the borrower. An earlier temporary injunction had been granted on May 22, 2023, but the bank had subsequently issued new notices of sale for September 2023, leading to allegations of contempt of court. The litigation involved disputes over the calculation of the outstanding debt (which had escalated to Ksh. 71,990,392.20) and the valuation of the property, with the borrowers claiming undervaluation by the bank while their agent valued it at Ksh. 40 million. The court’s decision established important precedent for how financial institutions must conduct loan recovery actions, particularly addressing required notifications, valuation standards, and auction procedures when exercising security enforcement rights.
Odyssey Capital Limited v Mburu & another
This financial services case (Civil Application E348 of 2024) involving an investment company received a ruling from the Court of Appeal on March 7, 2025. The dispute centered on investment advisory services and potential misrepresentation in financial product marketing, with respondents alleging they received negligent investment advice resulting in significant financial losses.
The Ruling: The court’s decision, while not detailed addressed the standard of care required from investment advisors operating in Kenya’s capital markets, examining both statutory obligations under the Capital Markets Act and common law fiduciary duties. The ruling established clearer boundaries for marketing communications, risk disclosures, and client suitability assessments in Kenya’s financial advisory sector. It also clarified the extent of advisor liability for investment underperformance versus genuine misrepresentation, with broader implications for Kenya’s developing capital markets. The judgment influences how financial products are marketed to retail investors and the documentation standards required to demonstrate regulatory compliance, reinforcing consumer protection in financial services.
Telkom Kenya Limited v Communication Workers Union
The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on March 7, 2025, in this telecommunications labor dispute (Civil Appeal 96 of 2019) between Kenya’s third-largest telecom operator and its workers’ union. The case involved collective bargaining agreements and employee rights during corporate restructuring following ownership changes at Telkom Kenya.
The Ruling: The court established important precedent for how telecommunications companies and other technology-intensive businesses must approach workforce transitions during ownership changes and business model evolution. The judgment balanced commercial restructuring imperatives against worker protections enshrined in labor regulations. While specific details of the ruling are not provided, the decision would have addressed consultation requirements, severance compensation formulas, and procedural compliance under Kenya’s employment laws. This ruling provides crucial guidance on required procedures for implementing organizational changes that impact employment, clarifying standards for meaningful union engagement, transparent selection criteria for staff reductions, and appropriate severance compensation calculations. The decision reinforces that digital transformation and competitive pressures do not exempt companies from full compliance with employment protection regulations.
