In Re: Arvind Engineering Limited ML HC IP No. 03 of 2019 [2019] eKLR the High Court also held that where there’s any pending insolvency proceedings, the Debenture Holder once made aware of such proceedings ought to remain in those proceedings and make arguments for or against the grant of the order.
The Supreme Court in ascertaining the position of judicial abstinence, as with judicial restraint also known as the Pullman doctrine in Benson Ambuti Adega & 2 Others vs Kibos Distillers Ltd & 5 Others [2020] eKLR upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision in finding that the lower court erred in law in finding that the Environment and Land Court [ELC] had jurisdiction simply because some of the payers in the Petition were outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or the National Environmental Complaints Committee.
In Re: Arvind Engineering Limited ML HC IP No. 03 of 2019 [2019] eKLR the High Court held that the holder of a debenture whose instruments empowered them to appoint a Receiver-manager under the Repealed Act is deemed to have powers to appoint an administrator under the Insolvency Act 2015, section 534 as the powers and functions of a Receiver-Manager are akin to that of an administrator then the Bank.
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi Petition number 94 of 2016 Monica Munika Kibuchi & 6 Others vs Mount Kenya University & Another, the Court declared that Section 42(1) of the Employment Act which excludes application of section 41 when terminating probationary contracts to be unconstitutional.
On 1st July 2021, In the case of Henry Aming’a Nyabere V DPP (2021) eKLR, at Nakuru High court, a landmark ruling was delivered by learned Judge Hon. Prof Joel Ngugi on the propriety of charging Advocates in criminal suits for doing their work.
Though by way of consent, the Court in HC Misc Application No E680 of 2020 entered the first of its kind decision, that online platforms and digital meeting solutions qualified as “venue” for purposes of convening a meeting.
The Court of Appeal nullified 23 Acts of Parliament for being unconstitutional in a move that aimed to solidify the constitutional necessity for concurrence between both houses of Parliament in compliance with Art5icle 11(3) of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) in the judgement of Senate of the Republic of Kenya & 4 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & another; Attorney General & 7 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR.
On the 7th May 2021, a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi in the matter of Judicial Service Commission & another v Lucy Muthoni Njora [2021] eKLR pronounced itself on among others the issues whether the Courts in cases of Judicial Review have any place making substantive inquiries into the administrative actions impugned before them.
In Geoffrey M. Asanyo & 3 others v Attorney General [2018] eKLR, the Supreme Court grappled with two questions; when does a consent by the parties transmute into an Order of the Court? What is the role of the Court in the adoption of the consent?
The Supreme Court in the matter of Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 others [2017] eKLR settled the question whether it has jurisdiction to review its own Judgments, Rulings or Orders, and if so, what is the scope of such jurisdiction?
The Supreme Court of Kenya, on Friday 6th December 2019, circumscribed a narrow jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal, to be where the High Court makes a manifest error of law. In its judgment in Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Networks Kenya Limited; Chartered Institute the Court observed that a party aggrieved by the decision of the High Court on an application seeking to set aside an arbitral award, had no automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
On 14th December 2017 the Supreme Court in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR altered the mandatory death penalty for convicted murderers and held that the mandatory death sentence is “out of sync with the progressive Bill of Rights” in Kenya’s 2010 Constitution and an affront to the rule of law.
