What are the opening hours?

Monday 08:00 - 17:00 Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00 Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00 Thursday 08:00 - 17:00 Friday 08:00 - 17:00 Saturday 08:00 - 17:00 Sunday 08:00 - 17:00

Kaaya & Memba Law Chambers, Nairobi (2026)

31/07/2026

The Supreme Court has considered the continuing search for accountability following the fatal shooting of Pakistani journalist Arshad Sharif by Kenyan police officers.

In Siddique w/o Arshad Sharif & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others [2026] KESC 54 (KLR), Sharif’s widow and media organisations challenged aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning the responsibility of State institutions, access to information, investigations, prosecution and appropriate constitutional remedies.

The courts had already recognised that Sharif’s death at the hands of police officers violated his constitutional right to life. General damages of KSh10 million had also been awarded.

The Supreme Court was asked to go further by, among other things, compelling the prosecution of individual officers, enhancing the compensation, ordering broader disclosure of investigative material and directing the State to issue a public apology.

The case highlights an important constitutional tension.

Courts have a duty to provide effective remedies for violations of fundamental rights. However, they must also respect the independence of institutions entrusted with investigations, disciplinary proceedings and prosecutorial decisions.

A court may scrutinise delay, inaction, irrationality or breach of constitutional duty. It will ordinarily not dictate the precise manner in which an independent constitutional office must exercise its lawful discretion.

The decision therefore speaks to two fundamental principles: the State must account for unlawful loss of life, and accountability must be pursued within the constitutional allocation of institutional powers.

Case: Siddique w/o Arshad Sharif & 2 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others [2026] KESC 54 (KLR), judgment delivered on 3 July 2026.

Disclaimer: This publication is a general summary of the legal issues arising from the judgment. It does not constitute legal advice or a complete account of the Court’s findings, orders or the procedural history of the matter.

30/07/2026

The Supreme Court has upheld tax exemptions granted to Japanese companies, consultants and employees participating in sixteen development projects financed under agreements between Kenya and Japan.

In Matindi v National Assembly & 4 Others [2026] KESC 56 (KLR), the appellant challenged Legal Notice No. 15 of 2021. The Notice exempted specified income earned in Kenya by Japanese entities and personnel working on projects covered by bilateral financing agreements.

The challenge raised three major questions.

Could the Cabinet Secretary grant the exemptions through a Gazette Notice? Was the Notice a statutory instrument requiring public participation? Did the exemptions unlawfully discriminate against Kenyan taxpayers?

The Supreme Court held that the Cabinet Secretary acted within the authority delegated under section 13(2) of the Income Tax Act. It characterised the Legal Notice as administrative rather than legislative in nature.

Accordingly, the Notice was not subjected to the public-participation requirements applicable to statutory instruments of a legislative character.

The Court also found that the claim of discrimination had not been proved. A proper assessment of discrimination would have required a substantive challenge to the underlying bilateral financing agreements and their specific terms, rather than to the Legal Notice alone.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the tax exemptions intact.

The decision is consequential for international development agreements, delegated authority and public finance. It confirms that certain tax exemptions may lawfully be implemented through administrative notices where Parliament has expressly conferred that authority and retained oversight.

Case: Matindi v National Assembly & 4 Others [2026] KESC 56 (KLR), judgment delivered on 17 July 2026.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for general legal information only and does not constitute tax or legal advice. The validity and application of any tax exemption depend on the governing legislation, the relevant legal instrument and the specific facts.

29/07/2026

The Supreme Court has clarified the jurisdictional boundary between the High Court and the Employment and Labour Relations Court in disputes concerning recruitment.

In Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital & 3 Others v Gikenyl & 74 Others [2026] KESC 50 (KLR), the dispute arose from the recruitment and appointment of chief executive officers and managing directors of several State corporations.

The appointments were challenged on allegations that the recruitment process lacked meritocracy and was affected by ethnic marginalisation and other constitutional violations.

The Supreme Court held that the Employment and Labour Relations Court’s jurisdiction is not restricted to disputes arising after an employer–employee relationship has been established. It may also determine disputes involving advertisements, shortlisting, interviews, selection and other pre-employment processes.

However, the identity and legal capacity of the claimant remain crucial.

Where prospective employees or applicants challenge a recruitment process in their employment-related capacity, the dispute may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

Where public-spirited citizens challenge State organs over broader constitutional violations, the High Court may retain jurisdiction. In this particular case, the petitioners had approached the Court as citizens and human-rights defenders rather than as applicants for the advertised positions. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the High Court’s jurisdiction over the petition.

The judgment provides much-needed guidance for litigants. Choosing the wrong court can result in substantial delay, additional costs and, in some cases, the striking out of proceedings.

Disclaimer: This publication is intended for general legal information only. It does not constitute legal advice. The appropriate forum for a recruitment or employment dispute depends on the pleadings, the parties’ legal capacity and the substance of the claim.

28/07/2026

The High Court has delivered a significant judgment on the constitutional limits of regulating online conduct.

In Law Society of Kenya & 8 Others v Attorney General & 17 Others [2026] KEHC 9453 (KLR), the Court declared sections 6(1)(ja) and 27(1)(b) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional.

The provisions formed part of legislative measures intended to address unlawful activity in the digital space. However, the Court found that the impugned provisions did not meet the constitutional threshold required when limiting protected rights and freedoms.

The decision reinforces an important principle: Parliament may regulate harmful online conduct, but it must do so through laws that are clear, precise and constitutionally proportionate. Broad or vague provisions risk criminalising legitimate expression and creating uncertainty over what conduct is prohibited.

For journalists, bloggers, content creators, businesses and ordinary social media users, the judgment is an important reminder that freedom of expression remains protected online. That freedom is not absolute, but any restriction must comply with the Constitution.

The ruling also demonstrates the Judiciary’s role in ensuring that technological regulation does not erode constitutional safeguards.

Case: Law Society of Kenya & 8 Others v Attorney General & 17 Others [2026] KEHC 9453 (KLR), judgment delivered on 2 July 2026.

Disclaimer: This publication is intended for general legal information only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice based on the specific circumstances of any matter. Judicial decisions may be appealed, reviewed or subsequently distinguished.

22/07/2026

Some businesses describe themselves as technology companies, payment platforms or digital marketplaces. But under Kenya’s new Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, what matters is not the label—it is what the business actually does.

A company may require licensing if it operates a virtual-asset exchange, custodial wallet, payment gateway, brokerage, investment-advisory service, asset-management platform, tokenization service, token-issuance platform or stablecoin business.

The Act commenced on 4 November 2025. Existing virtual asset service providers were given one year to comply, placing the statutory deadline on 4 November 2026.

Depending on the service offered, licensing and supervision will fall under the Central Bank of Kenya or the Capital Markets Authority.

Compliance extends far beyond obtaining a licence. Providers must address:

• Anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing controls;
• Protection and segregation of customer assets;
• Capital, solvency and insurance requirements;
• Cybersecurity and business continuity;
• Data protection and record keeping;
• Customer complaints and conflict-of-interest procedures; and
• Advertising that is fair, accurate and not misleading.

HOW WE HELP

At KM Law Chambers, we assist virtual asset businesses, fintech companies, investors and technology founders with:

✓ Determining whether their activities require licensing;
✓ Identifying the correct regulator and licence category;
✓ Corporate and ownership structuring;
✓ Licence-readiness reviews and applications;
✓ AML, customer-protection and governance policies;
✓ Token-offering and investment documentation;
✓ Technology, custody and service-provider agreements;
✓ Privacy policies, customer terms and marketing reviews; and
✓ Regulatory investigations, enforcement and appeals.

Disclaimer: This publication is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

:::

20/07/2026

What should you do when a neighbour’s security camera appears to monitor your doorway, movements or home?

In Ngunjiri v Kiambi & another [2025] KEHC 3793 (KLR), a tenant alleged that a neighbour had installed a CCTV camera facing his residence without consent. He claimed that it captured his family’s movements and intruded into areas where they reasonably expected privacy. He approached the High Court seeking declarations, removal of the surveillance equipment, destruction of stored footage and compensation.

The Court did not ultimately determine whether the camera violated his privacy. Instead, it struck out the petition because the complainant had not first used the complaint mechanism established under the Data Protection Act.

The decision illustrates the doctrine of exhaustion: where legislation creates a specialised dispute-resolution process, parties ordinarily need to use that procedure before approaching the High Court. For personal-data complaints, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner is generally the first port of call. A later appeal or court challenge may be available through the routes provided by law.

The case also demonstrates that a strong underlying complaint may still fail if it is filed in the wrong forum or pursued in the wrong sequence.

Before complaining, document the camera’s position, the area it captures, correspondence with the owner, any request for access or re-angling, and the response received. Security concerns and privacy rights must be properly balanced.

Legal information only. Every case turns on its own facts.

19/07/2026

A mining project may appear commercially attractive—but hidden legal defects can turn the investment into an expensive dispute.

Before purchasing, financing or partnering in a mining project, an investor should establish whether:

• The mineral right is valid and registered;
• The licence covers the correct mineral and geographical area;
• Government approval is required for the proposed transfer or change in ownership;
• Landowners and affected communities have given the required consent;
• Compensation and community obligations have been addressed;
• Environmental approvals have been obtained; and
• Royalties, regulatory returns and licence conditions are up to date.

Under Kenya’s Mining Act, a person cannot lawfully prospect or mine without the appropriate licence or permit. Transfers, assignments, mortgages and certain changes in the ownership or control of a mining company require government approval.

The Act also protects landowners, lawful occupiers and communities. Where mining operations interfere with land, buildings, water, cultivation or livelihoods, prompt, adequate and fair compensation may be required. Mining should not begin before affected owners, occupiers or users are compensated.

HOW WE HELP

At KM Law Chambers, we assist investors, mining companies, landowners and communities with:

✓ Mining-project legal due diligence;
✓ Licence applications, renewals and transfers;
✓ Land access, consent and compensation agreements;
✓ Community Development Agreements;
✓ Environmental and regulatory compliance;
✓ Mining transactions and investment agreements; and
✓ Objections, compensation claims and mining-related disputes.

Before committing funds to a mining project, obtain independent legal advice. The cost of proper due diligence is usually far lower than the cost of acquiring a defective or non-compliant project.

Disclaimer: This post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

:::

19/07/2026

Can someone’s name be removed from a child’s birth certificate after DNA evidence disproves biological paternity?

In KDN v SMN & 2 others [2025] KEHC 8285 (KLR), the applicant’s name had been entered on a child’s birth certificate as the biological father. A subsequent DNA test concluded that he was not the child’s biological parent. He asked the High Court to direct the registration authorities to remove his name and issue a corrected certificate.

The child’s mother did not oppose the application. The relevant government respondents entered an appearance but did not file a response or participate in the hearing. The Court also found no evidence of marriage, continuing cohabitation or circumstances from which acquired parental responsibility could be inferred.

The High Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant’s name be deleted from the birth certificate. It further ordered the issuance of a new certificate containing accurate information.

The decision demonstrates that civil-registration records may be corrected where credible evidence establishes that important information is inaccurate. However, paternity disputes involve more than adult interests. Courts must also consider the child’s identity, dignity, welfare and best interests, together with any parental responsibility a person may have legally acquired through conduct or another recognised basis.

A private DNA report will not necessarily determine every case automatically, particularly where the evidence is challenged or the person has already assumed legal parental responsibility.

Legal information only. Every case turns on its own facts.

18/07/2026

Witchcraft for Harm? Kenyan Law Treats It as a Serious Offence

Under section 3 of the Witchcraft Act, Cap. 67, Laws of Kenya, any person who professes knowledge of so-called witchcraft or the use of charms commits an offence if they advise another person on how to bewitch or injure a person, animal, or property.

The same provision also criminalises supplying any article that is presented as a means of witchcraft.

In simple terms, the law does not only target the person who seeks to cause harm. It also targets the person who claims to have special knowledge and then gives advice, charms, objects, or materials intended to be used to injure others.

The provision is concerned with intent to injure.

That injury may be directed at a person. It may also be directed at animals or property. The law therefore treats harmful witchcraft-related conduct as a criminal issue, not merely a cultural or private matter.

The penalty is severe.

A person found guilty under section 3 of the Witchcraft Act is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

This means that anyone who presents themselves as able to assist in bewitching, harming, or damaging another person, animal, or property may face serious criminal consequences.

The legal position is clear:

Culture is not a defence for conduct intended to injure others.

Kenyan law protects life, dignity, property, and public order.

Disclaimer: This article is for general legal information and public awareness only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. For advice on a specific matter, kindly consult a qualified advocate.

18/07/2026

Does divorce automatically mean every matrimonial asset is divided equally?

In Nyakeya v Nyamweya [2025] KECA 20 (KLR), the Court of Appeal considered several properties acquired during a long marriage and the different contributions made by the spouses. The dispute involved questions of ownership, rental income, direct financial contribution and indirect effort toward the family’s welfare.

The Court reaffirmed that matrimonial-property disputes are decided according to the evidence relating to each individual asset. Contribution may be direct or indirect, and courts recognise that spouses do not ordinarily maintain detailed commercial records of everything contributed during a marriage. Earnings, domestic responsibilities, childcare, management of the home and support that allows the other spouse to acquire property may all be relevant.

However, marriage does not automatically create equal ownership of every property associated with either spouse. The Court divided one property equally, maintained a 60:40 division of another and rejected a claimed share in an apartment where the evidence did not establish the necessary ownership basis.

The result demonstrates why broad statements such as “everything is always 50:50” can be misleading. Fairness is important, but the court must still identify the property, determine whether it is matrimonial property and assess the proven contributions connected to its acquisition or improvement.

Couples should safely retain purchase records, loan documents, title documents and evidence of both monetary and non-monetary contributions.

Legal information only. Every case turns on its own facts.

Kaaya & Memba Law Chambers

31/07/2026

30/07/2026

29/07/2026

28/07/2026

22/07/2026

20/07/2026

19/07/2026

19/07/2026

18/07/2026

18/07/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday	08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday	08:00 - 17:00
Thursday	08:00 - 17:00
Friday	08:00 - 17:00
Saturday	08:00 - 17:00
Sunday	08:00 - 17:00