NGUGI MBURU Advocates

20/04/2026

Redundancy sits at the intersection of business necessity and employee rights, and the law demands a careful balance between them.

While redundancy is a lawful ground for termination, it is not a free pass for employers, it is a tightly regulated process grounded in fairness, accountability, and employee protection.

Building on statutory provisions and recent judicial interpretation, we explore how the law imposes clear obligations on employers. These requirements are not merely procedural formalities; they are substantive safeguards designed to cushion employees from the economic shock of job loss.

In doing so, the law draws important distinctions between:
i) Lawful termination and unfair dismissal.
ii) Operational necessity and procedural abuse.
iii) Employer discretion and employee protection.

At the centre of this framework is a core principle: redundancy must be both justified and humane, ensuring that employees are treated with dignity and compensated fairly for their service.

In this edition, we unpack the legal framework and its practical implications for employers, employees, and practitioners navigating redundancy in Kenya.

31/03/2026

Not every marriage tells a story of shared effort, and the law is beginning to reflect that reality.

This week’s newsletter takes a closer look at an often overlooked truth in matrimonial property disputes: contribution is not automatic, and in some cases, it may be absent altogether.

Building on recent decisions from the Kenyan courts, we examine how the law is moving away from broad assumptions of shared ownership and towards a more disciplined, evidence-based approach. Courts are increasingly interrogating whether a spouse’s role, financial or otherwise, can truly be said to have contributed to the acquisition or preservation of property.

In doing so, they are drawing a clear line between:
i) Mere occupation and legally recognizable contribution.
ii) Support that enables acquisition and conduct that undermines it.
iii) Assumed entitlement and proven proprietary interest.

At the centre of this shift is a simple but powerful idea: property rights must be grounded in contribution, not status. In this edition, we unpack the legal position and its practical implications for property owners, practitioners, and anyone navigating matrimonial disputes.

23/03/2026

In this week’s newsletter, we explore a critical shift in Kenya’s tax landscape: the balance between KRA’s enforcement powers and the growing personal exposure of directors and senior management.

We break down a recent Tax Appeals Tribunal decision that reinforces the importance of statutory time limits and protects taxpayers from retrospective assessments. At the same time, we examine how the Tax Procedures Act is increasingly holding individuals accountable where corporate structures are used in a way that undermines tax obligations.

Key themes from this edition:
• When KRA can (and cannot) revisit past tax positions
• Why tax certainty matters for businesses
• How directors may be held personally liable for company tax debts

The message is clear: while the law protects taxpayers from arbitrary enforcement, it equally demands accountability from those in charge. Read the full newsletter for insights and practical takeaways.

02/03/2026

Contribution, Not Residence: Court of Appeal Draws the Line on Matrimonial Property Claims

In Resma Commercial Agencies v Leah Wangui Ngata (Deceased) & Another (Court of Appeal, Nairobi, 2025), the Court delivered an important clarification on what constitutes legally enforceable contribution in matrimonial property disputes.
The case concerned a property registered solely in the husband’s name but occupied as the matrimonial home for over 17 years. The wife argued that although she did not directly pay the mortgage, her income from farming and business, together with managing household expenses, enabled repayment of the loan. She contended that this indirect support created a beneficial interest requiring her consent before the property could be sold.
The majority of the Court disagreed.

The Court drew a clear distinction between domestic contribution and proprietary entitlement. It held that occupation, length of residence, or simply labelling property as a “family home” does not automatically create ownership rights.
What is required is proof, direct or indirect , of contribution referable to the acquisition or substantial improvement of the specific property.
Crucially, no documentary or cogent evidence was produced to show financial contribution toward the purchase or mortgage. In the absence of proof, no trust arose, and the registered proprietor retained the legal capacity to transfer the property.
The purchaser’s title was therefore upheld.
A dissenting judge adopted a broader view of informal economic contribution within marriage. However, the majority reaffirmed a core principle: proprietary rights cannot arise from status alone, contribution must be proven on evidence.

Why This Matters
This decision reinforces several key principles:
• Matrimonial occupation does not equal beneficial ownership.
• Calling property a “family home” has no automatic proprietary effect.
• Contribution must be proven, not presumed.
• A purchaser may safely transact on the strength of the register unless a beneficial interest is demonstrably established.
The Court has drawn a firm line between supporting a household and acquiring a proprietary stake in property.

Governance & Risk Implications
For property owners, lenders, developers and investors:
✔ Due diligence remains primarily register-based.
✔ Unregistered spousal claims must be grounded in demonstrable contribution.
✔ Matrimonial disputes do not automatically defeat registered title.
✔ Clear documentation of financial contributions within marriages reduces litigation risk.

How we can Help
✔Structuring property transactions involving married persons
✔Due diligence reviews to assess potential equitable interests
✔Advising lenders on spousal consent and risk mitigation
✔Litigation and appellate representation in property and trust disputes

13/01/2026

Pupillage Opportunity:

Our firm has an opening for pupillage positions. Past experience working in a law firm.Only candidates with strong academic credentials, including a Second Class Upper Division in the Bachelor of Laws, should apply.

Interested candidates should submit the following documents as a single PDF:

Application letter
Curriculum Vitae
KCSE certificate
LLB degree certificate and transcripts
Testimonials

Applications should be sent to [email protected] shortlisted candidates will be contacted for interviews.

22/12/2025

Our office shall remain closed from 19th December,2025 to 5th January 2026 for the Christmas Holidays.

02/07/2025

In a precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that children born out of wedlock to Muslim fathers are entitled to inherit from their deceased father’s estate. This ruling constitutes a significant development in the application of Islamic personal law within the broader framework of Kenya’s constitutional jurisprudence.

The decision arose from the matter of Fatima Abu Farah v. Ruth Faith Mwawasi, wherein the appellant sought to disinherit the children of the deceased on the basis that they were not born within a valid Islamic marriage. The appellant argued that under Islamic personal law, such children are not entitled to succession rights.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the determinations of the subordinate courts, finding that the exclusion of children born out of wedlock amounted to unlawful discrimination in contravention of the Constitution of Kenya, particularly the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Article 27. The Court further held that such exclusion did not satisfy the constitutional threshold of necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality, as required under Article 24 of the Constitution.
While acknowledging the applicability of Islamic personal law in matters of succession under Article 24(4), the Court emphasized that any limitation of rights under religious or personal law must nonetheless comply with constitutional standards.

26/11/2024

24/11/2024

Justice Mugambi ordered a police officer to individually pay 700,000/- to a man & wife for locking up their house and demanding for a mbuzi in order to get the keys. Constitutional rights upheld. Mutua & another v Gitau & 2 others [2024] KEHC 14443 (KLR)