Legal Express Kenya

Legal Express Kenya on this page is where you will find legal news, views and reviews

The government just dropped some massive policy updates that actually affect your day-to-day life, business, and propert...
19/06/2026

The government just dropped some massive policy updates that actually affect your day-to-day life, business, and property in Kenya. Here’s a quick look at what’s changing:
👉 Health Alert: The Ministry of Health is pushing for a total nationwide ban on sh**ha and waterpipe to***co. Public participation is open right now!
👉 County Shifts: Major leadership restructuring and municipal updates in Kiambu, Kajiado, Makueni, and Nyamira.
👉 Property Check: A long list of lost land titles and registry reconstructions, essential if you’re buying or selling right now.
Catch up on the full blog: https://legalexpresskenya.com/2026/06/19/kenyas-new-sh**ha-ban-devolution-shifts/

Kenya's Reparations Framework: A Constitutional Win That Now Has to Survive ImplementationOn 5 May 2026, the Kenya Natio...
15/06/2026

Kenya's Reparations Framework: A Constitutional Win That Now Has to Survive Implementation

On 5 May 2026, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) submitted to President Ruto its Report and draft Reparations Guidelines, prepared under Presidential Proclamation No. 1 of 2026 following the Kerugoya High Court's consolidated judgment in Petitions E10, E11 and E14 of 2025.

Background

The report follows a turf war over who should lead reparations. In August 2025, Ruto gazetted a 15-member Panel of Experts chaired by Prof. Makau Mutua, with former LSK President Faith Odhiambo as Vice Chairperson

Civil society challenged its legality, arguing the panel's creation by the Executive contravened the constitutional independence of bodies like IPOA; the Kerugoya court suspended it. Faith Odhiambo resigned on 6 October 2025 citing stalled progress and court challenges. A 4 December 2025 ruling then declared the Executive-appointed panel unconstitutional, holding that the mandate rests with KNCHR

What it says

KNCHR documented 1,815 claims and verified 1,101 victims across six categories (right to life, sexual violence, torture, security of person, property, enforced disappearance), using a "reasonable basis to believe" standard. It proposes a five-pillar UN Basic Principles framework with a compensation schedule (Kshs 2.5m minimum for fatal shootings, Kshs 2m for torture, Kshs 750,000 for r**e), plus a Reparations Act, ring-fenced Fund, National Policy, withdrawal of Article 37-related charges, Public Order Act reform, and ICPPED ratification.

Scope: not limited to protests, no time bar

Importantly, the Guidelines are broader than the headline framing suggests. Clause 4 covers "gross, systemic or widespread human rights violations attributable to the State" generally — demonstrations are an included subset, not the whole. Clause 21(7) states explicitly that nothing imposes a limitation period, and the policy recommendations call for eligible categories to include violations from "the colonial period, the post-independence era," and protests — so a victim from the 1980s could in principle claim, evidentiary gaps permitting.

Malicious prosecution isn't named as its own category, but isn't excluded either. It could plausibly fall under "arbitrary arrest and detention" (Kshs 50,000 minimum) or the broad definition of "moral harm" (which includes reputational loss), and the recommendation that the ODPP review and terminate Article 37-related prosecutions speaks directly to this harm — though as an accountability measure rather than a compensation entitlement.

Critique and outlook

The architecture is sound, but gaps remain: compensation figures lack indexation or caps; the verified 1,101 is likely a small fraction of the real total with no clear scaling plan; the "interim administrative process" has no timeline or budget; and accountability recommendations (prosecutions, charge withdrawals) have no enforcement teeth — echoing the fate of TJRC recommendations since 2013.

Implementation depends on Parliament passing a Reparations Act and Treasury ring-fencing funds — both discretionary, multi-year asks, and the institutional fight that produced this report already ate eight months of a 60-day timeline.

As for deterrence: compensation addresses harm after the fact. Real deterrence rests on the guarantees-of-non-repetition pillar — Public Order Act reform, mandatory IPOA reporting on lethal force, actual prosecutions — none of which KNCHR can compel. Until those move, the framework's effect on future protest policing will likely stay limited.

Are foreign embassies immune to being sued in Kenyan courts in employment matters? That is the the question that the Cou...
14/06/2026

Are foreign embassies immune to being sued in Kenyan courts in employment matters? That is the the question that the Court of Appeal on 12th June 2026 allowed to be submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Lucy Kusewa and Renalda Mjomb Vs The Embassy of Sweden.

The 2 employees sued the embassy at the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) over pension and terminal benefits. The Embassy argued the ELRC had no jurisdiction because of diplomatic immunity. The ELRC rejected that argument, and in April 2020 the Court of Appeal agreed — ruling that diplomatic immunity is "restrictive" (not absolute) and doesn't shield a state from disputes over local employment contracts, which are treated as private/commercial matters.

The Embassy sought to take the fight to the Supreme Court, arguing the case raises an important, unsettled legal question of general public importance — specifically, whether embassy staff employment falls under "ordinary diplomatic functions" (immune) or "commercial activity" (not immune).

The Court of Appeal agreed this question is novel, unsettled, and significant enough to warrant Supreme Court input, especially given inconsistent past rulings on the issue. So it certified the appeal as raising a public importance question and granted leave to proceed to the Supreme Court.

However, the Court refused to pause (stay) the underlying employment cases at the ELRC — meaning those decade-old suits can continue while the immunity question heads to the Supreme Court.

The legal battle over whether foreign embassies can claim immunity from employment disputes with local staff is headed to Kenya's Supreme Court — a decision that could affect all diplomatic missions operating in Kenya. ⚖️🇰🇪🇸🇪

Court of Appeal Dismisses Civil Servant's Bid to be Declared "Permanent and Pensionable"The Court of Appeal at Nairobi o...
14/06/2026

Court of Appeal Dismisses Civil Servant's Bid to be Declared "Permanent and Pensionable"

The Court of Appeal at Nairobi on 12th June 2026 has upheld a ruling that Samson Ogechi Nyaanga, who served as Director of Employment in the Ministry of Labour, was on a renewable 3-year contract — not permanent and pensionable terms as he claimed.

**Key takeaways:**

🔹 **Payslips aren't proof of your employment terms.** Even though Nyaanga's payslips showed "permt" status and a 2026 retirement date, the court ruled a payslip is an administrative/payroll document — it cannot create or communicate your actual terms of employment.

🔹 **"Legitimate expectation" needs a clear, express promise.** Repeated payroll errors or administrative quirks don't automatically create legally enforceable expectations — there must be an unambiguous representation from the employer.

🔹 **You can't hold two pensionable posts at once.** Nyaanga remained a permanent and pensionable employee of KALRO (his original employer) and had only taken leave of absence to serve at the Ministry. The court held he couldn't simultaneously be pensionable in two government institutions without a formal transfer of service.

🔹 **Silence in appointment letters cuts both ways.** While employers must clearly state contract terms (duration, end date) under the Employment Act, the absence of such details doesn't automatically mean "permanent" — the employee still has to prove their claimed status.

🔹 **Allegations of malice/bad faith need evidence**, not just suspicion or coincidence in timing.

**Bottom line:** Public servants should insist on clear, written appointment letters specifying their terms (permanent & pensionable vs. contract) — relying on payslip codes or assumptions can leave you exposed.

Romageco Kenya Limited vs. Hudson Kidaha Kisigwa – Civil Appeal No. E025 of 2020The Court of Appeal on 12th June 2026  u...
14/06/2026

Romageco Kenya Limited vs. Hudson Kidaha Kisigwa – Civil Appeal No. E025 of 2020

The Court of Appeal on 12th June 2026 upheld the ELRC's 2018 judgment awarding a former salesman Kshs. 4.7 million after finding his dismissal unfair and unlawful.

Key takeaways:

- The employee was hospitalized, given sick leave, then dismissed via newspaper publication while still on leave—no show-cause notice, no disciplinary hearing.

- The Court reaffirmed that employers claiming "desertion" must show tangible efforts to reach the employee before terminating—merely alleging absence isn't enough.

- The 12-month salary compensation was upheld due to aggravating factors: false theft accusations, dismissal "without decorum," and failure to issue a certificate of service or pay terminal dues.

- A late attempt to argue the commission claims were time-barred (raised only in submissions in the Appeal, not pleadings) was rejected—appeals can't introduce fresh issues not canvassed at trial.

**Lesson for employers:** Due process at the "shop floor" isn't optional, even where misconduct is alleged. Document everything, follow section 41/45 procedures, and never terminate via media before exhausting internal processes.

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court of Appeal Confirms: Forex Losses Realized Through Debt-to-Equity Conversion Are Tax DeductibleCommissioner of Dome...
14/06/2026

Court of Appeal Confirms: Forex Losses Realized Through Debt-to-Equity Conversion Are Tax Deductible

Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Delmonte Kenya Limited, Civil Appeal No. E174 of 2022 — delivered 12th June 2026

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes' appeal, affirming that foreign exchange losses realized when a company converts intercompany foreign currency loans into equity are revenue in nature and deductible under section 4A of the Income Tax Act — not capital expenditure barred by section 16(1)(b).

Background

Delmonte Kenya Limited had, since 2001, drawn unsecured, interest-free USD and GBP loans from a related Panamanian entity to fund day-to-day operations (suppliers, raw materials, salaries). Because these loans were translated into Kenya Shillings annually for accounting purposes but never repaid, the resulting exchange losses or gains were unrealized and excluded from tax computations for years 2001–2008.

In 2009, the loans were assigned to a related company, DelMonte Kenya Holdings (DKH), and Delmonte settled the outstanding balance partly by offsetting intercompany receivables and partly by issuing 41,625 ordinary shares to DKH. This conversion crystallized a previously unrealized forex loss of Kshs 401,261,996, which Delmonte deducted in its 2009 tax computation.

Following an audit covering 2009–2011, the Commissioner disallowed the deduction, raising additional assessments of over Kshs 222 million. The Tax Appeals Tribunal sided partly with the Commissioner, holding that the portion of the loss converted into shares was capital and non-deductible. On appeal, the High Court (Tuiyott J.) reversed that finding, ruling the entire loss was revenue in nature and deductible. The Commissioner then escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal.

The Commissioner's Arguments

The appellant argued that:

- the share-issue portion of the debt settlement was a capital transaction, making the associated loss non-deductible "capital expenditure" under section 16(1)(b);
- relying on *Beauchamp v F.W. Woolworth plc* and *Sutlej Cotton Mills v CIT*, the nature of a forex loss should track whether it relates to a capital or revenue item;
- section 4A is not a standalone provision and must be read with sections 3(2)(a)(i), 15 and 16 of the Income Tax Act, such that capital-nature losses fall outside section 4A's relief regardless of realization.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a second-tier appellate court, confined itself to questions of law and found no error in the High Court's approach.

**On strict construction of tax statutes:** The Court reaffirmed the constitutional and common-law principle — drawing on the Supreme Court's recent decision in *Barclays Bank of Kenya v Commissioner for Domestic Taxes* (2025) and the classic *Cape Brandy Syndicate v IRC* — that tax cannot be imposed, or deductions denied, by implication, analogy, or inference. Liability must arise from the express words of the statute, with ambiguity resolved in the taxpayer's favour.

**On realization of forex losses:** The Court upheld the Tribunal's and High Court's finding that realization under section 4A is not limited to cash repayment. Settlement of debt through conversion to equity, offset against receivables, or payment in kind all constitute realization events.

**On capital vs revenue character:** The Court agreed with the High Court that artificially splitting a single debt obligation — treating the portion settled via receivables as revenue but the portion settled via share issue as capital — would be "preposterous" and unjustified. The accumulated forex losses arose from the translation of the loan balances over years of operational use (paying suppliers and salaries), long before the 2009 conversion. The share issue itself, being denominated in Kenya Shillings, generated no forex difference; it was merely the *mechanism* of settlement. The losses therefore retained their revenue character.

**On the interplay between sections 4A, 15 and 16:** Section 16(1) is itself qualified by the words "save as otherwise expressly provided." The Court held that section 4A is precisely such an express provision — it mandates that realized forex gains or losses be taken into account as trading receipts or deductible expenses, without distinguishing between capital and revenue modes of realization. Reading additional capital/revenue qualifications into section 4A, as the Commissioner urged, would amount to interpretation by implication, which is impermissible in tax law.

Outcome

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the High Court's judgment — confirming Delmonte's entitlement to deduct the Kshs 401,261,996 realized forex loss — stands.

Why It Matters

This judgment offers welcome clarity for multinational groups financing Kenyan subsidiaries through intercompany foreign currency loans. Key takeaways:

- **Debt-to-equity conversions trigger realization** of accumulated forex gains or losses under section 4A, just as cash repayment would.

- **The character of the underlying loan use (revenue) governs**, not the mechanism chosen to extinguish the debt. Taxpayers need not fear that restructuring debt into equity will retroactively recharacterize years of accumulated revenue-account forex movements as capital losses.

- **Section 4A operates as a self-contained code** for realized forex gains and losses, taking precedence over the general capital-expenditure bar in section 16(1)(b) by virtue of its "save as otherwise expressly provided" carve-out.

- The decision reinforces the **strict/literal construction doctrine** in Kenyan tax jurisprudence, recently restated by the Supreme Court in the *Barclays Bank* royalties case — taxing authorities cannot expand liability (or restrict relief) through inference or "implied" cross-readings of statutory provisions.

Tax practitioners advising on intercompany debt restructurings, recapitalisations, and debt-to-equity swaps involving foreign currency exposure should take note of this precedent when assessing the deductibility of accumulated translation losses upon settlement.

How often do you read a news headline about a new law or a major court ruling and wonder, "Okay, but how does this actua...
12/06/2026

How often do you read a news headline about a new law or a major court ruling and wonder, "Okay, but how does this actually affect me?" 🤔💡

You’re not alone! The law can feel complex, but it belongs to all of us. That’s why we created the Legal Express Kenya monthly newsletter. It’s your go-to space for clear, human-centered breakdowns of the legal news, views, and reviews that matter most to our lives and businesses.

Think of it as your monthly legal pitstop—uncluttered, insightful, and completely free.

Ready to level up your legal awareness? Click the link below to join our mailing list! ⬇️
https://bit.ly/LEKnewsletter

How often do we form opinions on major national events based solely on a 60-second news clip or a social media headline?...
12/06/2026

How often do we form opinions on major national events based solely on a 60-second news clip or a social media headline?
When the High Court sat to hear the consolidated petitions against the Deputy President’s impeachment, it wasn't just a political event, it was a meticulous exercise in constitutional law.
The arguments raised regarding public participation, fair hearing timelines, and executive authority deserve to be read in their authentic form.
If you are curious about how our legal systems actually operate under pressure, we’ve got something for you. In our latest blog post, we have linked the primary High Court document outlining the foundational case framework and the detailed submissions made by the petitioners.
Take a moment to dive deeper, read the actual text, and draw your own conclusions.
Click the link below to read our full breakdown and view the official court records. https://legalexpresskenya.com/2026/06/09/cutting-the-dress-to-fit-the-wearer/

Decisions in which judges choose temporary politics over durable, long-term principles exact a heavy toll on our nation....
09/06/2026

Decisions in which judges choose temporary politics over durable, long-term principles exact a heavy toll on our nation. We have been down this road before, from the technical traps of Kibaki v Moi in 1999 to the late filing dismissals of 2013. Every time the courts fail to right a clear wrong, the fabric of public trust tears a little further.
The High Court's ruling on the Rigathi Gachagua impeachment follows this exact pattern. The bench admirably noted that the Senate violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing by refusing to grant an adjournment when he was incapacitated. Yet, they ruled the process irreversible and attached a Ksh 50,000,000 award to the violation, a figure that barely covers standard legal team costs, leaving nothing for the actual indignity endured.
But beyond the political noise, the most critical question remains unanswered by the court: Can Rigathi Gachagua vie for public office again?
Our analysis argues yes. Disqualification under Article 75 and Chapter Six does not flow from the bare fact of removal; it requires a valid, lawful finding of culpability reached in accordance with the law. Because he was denied a right to be heard, a lawful finding of guilt simply does not exist.
What are your thoughts on how this ruling impacts the average Kenyan's faith in judicial fairness? Do you believe the court should have the power to reverse an impeachment if the process itself was flawed?
Please read our full breakdown, share this post with your network, and drop your views in the comments section so we can discuss.
https://legalexpresskenya.com/2026/06/09/cutting-the-dress-to-fit-the-wearer/

The 3 Judge Bench Court for the Gachagua Impeachment Judgment has commenced
08/06/2026

The 3 Judge Bench Court for the Gachagua Impeachment Judgment has commenced

Address

P. O. Box 19539
Nairobi
00100

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Legal Express Kenya posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Legal Express Kenya:

Share