Legal Updates

The High Court's judgment on former Kenyan Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment centers on a profound constitutional dilemma. Although the court found that the Senate's refusal to grant Gachagua an adjournment during his illness breached his right to a fair hearing, it declined to quash the impeachment to avoid a "constitutional crisis" of dual incumbency. Instead, the judges awarded Gachagua Kshs. 50,000,000 in damages specifically to vindicate his breached rights and restore his dignity. This decision highlights a complex legal tension: while the monetary remedy addressed the violation of Gachagua's personal dignity, the court ultimately prioritized state stability over a procedural breach that it simultaneously noted was "plainly going to occasion a miscarriage of justice".

In its recent judgment, the High Court upheld the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua while simultaneously declaring that his right to a fair hearing had been violated during the Senate trial. By awarding damages rather than quashing the removal, the Court sparked a significant debate over whether constitutional remedies must mandate invalidation for procedural breaches or if courts possess the discretion to choose alternative forms of relief. This ruling ultimately hinges on a complex legal characterization: whether the requirement for a fair hearing was a fundamental precondition for the exercise of parliamentary power or merely a duty owed alongside a valid removal process.

Over the past quarter-century, Nyiha, Mukoma & Co. Advocates has had the privilege of handling cases and projects that have shaped jurisprudence and made a positive impact on our community. We take pride in the milestones we have achieved, the precedents we have helped set, and the trust our clients have placed in us through pivotal moments.

In a landmark June 2025 judgement, the High Court awarded Naila Qureshi Kshs. 157 million for medical negligence against Aga Khan University Hospital, setting a pivotal precedent for patient rights in Kenya. The case underscores the need for urgent reforms in healthcare to ensure patient trust and safety, urging providers to strengthen ethical practices and compliance to avoid costly litigation.

The journey of Kenya’s in duplum rule—from its historical inception through the spirited legislative debates around the Donde Bill, to its eventual enactment under Section 44A of the Banking Act—reflects an enduring commitment to balancing contractual freedom against the necessity of consumer protection. Initially conceived as a targeted measure to regulate banks, its evolving interpretation by Kenyan courts, notably in the contrasting judgments of Justices Mabeya and Majanja, underscores an ongoing tension between strict statutory interpretation and broader constitutional principles of equity and fairness.

Before you invest your hard-earned money in land, invest your time (and a bit of money) in due diligence. Consult professionals if needed. It is better to discover a defect beforehand than to find out in court later. And for those who may have already bought land, if you suspect something fishy in how the prior owner got it (maybe rumours of it being grabbed), consider seeking legal advice on how to mitigate the risk or verify the title’s legitimacy. The courts are there to uphold justice, and as seen, they will set things right – but it is far better to avoid being on the wrong side of a land dispute in the first place. Stay informed, stay cautious, and you can confidently enjoy the security of your property.

In the aftermath of the incident, the 1st respondent filed a suit against the 2nd respondent for negligence, alleging that the 2nd respondent was acting within the course and scope of his employment with BM Security Limited. However, the appellant, BM Security Limited, denied liability, contending that the 2nd respondent was not acting within the scope of his employment when he carried the 1st respondent as an unauthorized passenger, in direct contravention of the company's express prohibitions and the 2nd respondent's contractual obligations.

The grounds for setting aside arbitral awards are provided under Section 35 (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act, including “where the award deals with a dispute not contemplated or is outside the terms of reference to arbitration or matters beyond the scope of reference”. The Court of Appeal addressed itself to whether the judge set aside the award outside of this ground.

A Public Benefit Organization is a body whose sole purpose is to serve the public good by promoting economic, social, environmental, or cultural development and lobbying to protect the interests of the general public or a category of individuals or organizations.