Edward Sigei the executive director of the Kenya Copyright Board issued an advisory statement to respond to the widespread usage of books, illustrations, photographs and videos without sufficient acknowledgement of copyright owners. Specifically, the issued statement addressed the usage of the word "courtesy" as a form of acknowledgement and  declared such as null and insufficient to constitute sufficient reference to the works of a copyright holder. Further, the statement included an example of a sufficient to be in the form of "Maasai Mara Lions, by George Gitau" to show the origin of the illustrative works and the content creator. The statement also suggested the tagging of the social media handles of the content creator if the use is in any social media platforms. The statement concluded by encouraging content creators to embed digital signatures and other unique marks to further protect their work. 

Joe Mucheru the ICT Cabinet Secretary commended the efforts of the Legislature to uphold the collective inter-government effort to safeguard personal data in Kenya. The regulations which now have the full effect of the Law are aimed at curbing activities by Companies who breach privacy laws. In compliance with the law, all data controllers and data processors will now be required to register with the office of the Data Protection Commissioner. A company found in breach of the new data regulations could face fines of up to one percent of their annual turnover after the parliamentary committee on delegated legislation passed the data laws.

The approved set of regulations includes the data protection (General) regulations 2021, the Data Protection (Complaints Handling and Enforcement Procedures) Regulations, 2021, and the Data Protection (Registration of Data Controllers and Data Processors) Regulations, 2021.

The data protection (General) regulations, 2021 and the complaints handling regulations took effect from March 14, while the registration of data controllers and processors will take effect on July 14, 2022.

The Data Protection (General) Regulations, 2021 provide for rights of a data subject and limitations to commercial use of such information. These regulations also explain the roles of data controllers and processors, the communication of data breaches and the transfer of data outside Kenya.

In the event of commercialization of data, a data controller or data processor who uses personal data for commercial purposes without the consent of the data subject commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding Sh20,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment according to the data protection act.

Through a Press release, the CBK announced the publication by Legal Notice No. 46 of March 18, 2022, of the Central Bank of Kenya (Digital Credit Providers) Regulations, 2022. 

The Regulations were issued pursuant to Sections 57(1), 57(3) and 57(4) of the Central Bank of Kenya Act with the specific scope being to provide for the licensing and oversight of previously unregulated Digital Credit Providers (DCPs). 

The Regulations seek to address concerns raised by the public given the recent significant growth of digital lending particularly through mobile phones. These concerns relate to the predatory practices of the previously unregulated digital credit providers, and in particular, their high cost, unethical debt collection practices, and the abuse of personal information. The Regulations provide for the licensing, governance, and lending practices of DCPs. They also provide for consumer protection, credit information sharing, and outline the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations of DCPs. 

The lenders will from September apply to CBK for approval of interest rates on their loans, disclose all terms of their credit to borrowers and have also been barred from sharing information of loan defaulters with third parties.

President Uhuru Kenyatta assented into law the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2021 that was sponsored by Homa Bay Women Representative Gladys Wanga. The law according to the sponsor is to diversify sources of income for the youth and encourage them that talent pays. The law introduces a new sharing formula of revenues collected from ring back tunes. 

Under Section 30 C, the law provides: Without prejudice to section tune revenue 30 B, in the case of ring back tunes, the parties shall share the net revenue from the sale of ring back tunes, as follows — 

(a) the premium rate service provider at seven (7) percent; 

(b) the telecommunication operator at sixteen (16) percent; 

(c) the artist or copyright holder at fifty two (52) percent.

Justice Anthony Mrima on Wednesday ruled that Section  22(1)(b) (i) of the Elections Act which requires MPs to have degrees is unconstitutional. In the ruling delivered virtually from Nairobi, Justice Mrima said the disputed provision had failed to undertake adequate public participation. 

The ruling in part stated; "An order is hereby issued that Section  22(1) (b) (i) of the Elections Act is inoperational, of no legal effect, and void ab initio. For clarity, the requirement that a person must possess a degree from a university recognized in Kenya to qualify to become a Member of Parliament in Kenya is hereby nullified,"  

Through a joint media release, Sanlam, the largest non-banking financial services company in Africa, and Allianz, one of the world’s leading insurers and asset managers with a century of history in Africa, have agreed to combine their current and future operations across Africa to create the largest Pan-African non-banking financial services entity on the continent. This combination means that customers across Africa will benefit from the expertise and financial strength of two respected and well-known brands. 

The joint venture will house the business units of both Sanlam and Allianz in the African countries where one or both companies have a presence. Namibia will be included at a later stage and South Africa is excluded from the agreement. 

The combined operations of Sanlam and Allianz will create a premier Pan-African non-banking financial services entity, operating in 29 countries across the continent. The joint venture will be the largest Pan-African insurance player and is expected to be ranked in the top three, in the majority of the markets where the entity will operate. The entity is expected to have a combined total group equity value (GEV) in excess of 33 billion South African rand (approximately 2 billion euros).

Sanlam and Allianz will leverage each other’s strengths to unlock synergies and provide customers with best-in-class, innovative insurance solutions and technical excellence. The joint venture will create value for all stakeholders through greater economies of scale, broader geographic presence, larger combined market share, and a more diversified product offering.

Combining Sanlam’s expertise in Africa with Allianz’s global capabilities and insurance solutions, particularly for multinational businesses, the partnership aims to increase life and general insurance penetration, accelerate product innovation and drive financial inclusion in high-growth African markets.

“In line with Sanlam’s stated ambition to be a leading Pan-African financial services group, the proposed joint venture will enable us to take a significant step towards realising that ambition. It will also strengthen our leadership position in multiple key markets that are core to our Africa strategy, building quality and scale where it matters. We are delighted to have Allianz as partners and believe their expertise and financial strength will add tremendous value to our businesses,” says Sanlam Group CEO Paul Hanratty.

“In accordance with our enterprise strategy to expand our leadership position through scale and new partnership models, Allianz is pleased to accelerate its growth in this important region through a partnership with the undisputed market leader. Sanlam’s capabilities extend our local reach and market penetration, and the joint venture allows us to establish leading positions in key growth markets for Allianz,” says Member of the Board of Management of Allianz SE Christopher Townsend.

“Further, Sanlam shares our company values, our purpose of securing the future for our clients, and our long-term, generational approach to growing in new markets.”

The chairmanship of the joint venture partnership will rotate every two years between Sanlam and Allianz. The CEO of the entity will be named in due course.

The agreement is subject to certain conditions precedent, including but not limited to the receipt of required approvals from competition authorities, financial/insurance regulatory authorities and any customary conditions that Sanlam and/or Allianz would be required to fulfil for each jurisdiction.

Justice George Odunga sitting in the constitutional petition filed by Phillip Mueke Maingi & 5 Others, ruled that the mandatory minimum sentence in the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional. He further ruled that the court should exercise its discretion while sentencing sexual offenders and not impose the minimum sentence. “The perpetrators of the said offences must be condemned by all means. However, the sentences to be imposed must meet the constitutional dictates,” he said.

The case was filed by six convicts serving sentences under the Sexual Offences Acts, who moved to the High Court arguing that the mandatory minimum sentences are unjust and unfair, adding that the discretion of the judges and magistrates has been taken away. 

According to the petitioners, the Sexual Offences Act ought to be amended so that judges and magistrates can be given the discretion to decide on the appropriate punishment with regard to the unique circumstances of each case that is before them.

The judge further ruled that courts are at liberty to impose sentences prescribed thereunder as long as the same are not deemed to be the mandatory minimum prescribed sentences and that sexual offenders who were previously sentenced based on the mandatory minimum sentence are at liberty to petition the High Court for orders of re-sentencing.

Justice Anthony Mrima sitting in the High Court on a petition filed by businessman Humphrey Kariuki in opposition of tax evasion charges, ruled that any charge sheet not prepared and signed by lawful prosecutors will be quashed by the respective courts of law henceforth. 

In the ruling, Justice Mrima declared: "National Police Service, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, the Commission on Administration of Justice, the Kenya Revenue Authority, the Anti-Counterfeit Agency or any other Government entity mandated with criminal investigation role under any written law, cannot draft, sign and/ present any Charge Sheets in any criminal prosecution.” He Further declared; “A declaration hereby issues that prosecution of criminal offences in Kenya must only be undertaken by lawful Prosecutors (being either the Director of Public Prosecutions or such other persons exercising the delegated powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions under Article 157(9) of the Constitution or the entities conferred with powers of prosecution pursuant to Article 157(12) of the Constitution) and as long as such prosecutions are in keeping with (a) above.” 

He however noted that the ruling shall not apply to past cases due to the potential effect it would have in the criminal justice system in Kenya

The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling from the High Court that nullified the law that bars spouses in a civil marriage from divorcing unless three years have elapsed. The abrogated law barred the newly-weds of a civil marriage from moving out or remarrying before the end of three years from the date of the marriage. 

Appellate judges Gatembu Kairu, Pauline Nyamweya and Jessie Lesiit ruled: “While Section 66(1) of the Marriage Act of 2014 is not discriminatory, it is unconstitutional for reason of, and to the extent of its disproportionate effect in cases where a divorce in a civil law marriage may be necessary and justified before the three-year limitation...... It is our view that notwithstanding the legitimate constitutional purpose for the time limitations in divorce proceedings arising from civil marriages, as an exception to the general rule, divorce should be allowed for situations, which are unavoidable and unendurable. It ought to be allowed for reasons of exceptional hardship or depravity, irrespective of the duration of the marriage for, and to protect the rights of the parties involved.”

The case stemmed from a petition filed by lawyer Tukero ole Kina on June 12, 2018, seeking a declaration that Section 66 (1) of the Marriage Act, 2014, is unconstitutional, null and void, for violating articles of the Constitution. The said petition was filed in the public interest against the Attorney General and the National Assembly.

The lawyer argued that the section of the law was discriminative against parties in civil marriages, by providing that a party may not petition the court for separation or dissolution of the marriage unless three years have elapsed since the celebration of the marriage. He said the law failed to provide for such a bar with regards to petitions to dissolve a Christian, Customary, Hindu or Islamic marriage.

The Supreme court through a five judge bench declared that the CDF Act, 2013 was unconstitutional on grounds that:

• The CDF Act 2013 offends the division of functions between the national and county governments;

• The Act offends the constitutional principles on the division of revenue;

• The Act offends the constiutional principles on public finance; and

• The Act offends the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

CDF can be traced to the introduction of the Constituencies development fund in 2003 through the now repealed Constituencies Development Fund Act, 2003 which provided that the government was to set aside at least 2.5% of the ordinary revenue and channel it to the CDF fund to be utilized at the Constituency level. 

In 2007, the CDF Act 2003 was amended to establish the National CDF Board at the Constituency level to replace the National Committee. CDF committees were also established with respective Members of Parliament being the constituency committee patrons. On 14th Februry 2013, the CDF Act 2013 was enacted and in doing so repealed the CDF Act, 2003.

Justice Edward Murithi ruling from the High Court at Meru in a petition filed by Ripples International, declared section 35 (1) (b) and section 36 (1) (b) unconstitutional, which denied a widow the right to the deceased husband's estate if she remarries. 

In the petition, Ripples International challenged the constitutionality of sections 32, 35 (1) (b), 36 (1) (b) and 39 (1) (b) of the Law of Succession Act. However, Justice Murithi ruled that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant the declaration of section 32 and the adjoining section 33 invalid.

Section 32 of the Law of Succession Act provides for property and districts which are excluded from the provisions of the law when someone dies without a will. The excluded property includes agricultural land and crops or livestock in West Pokot, Turkana, Marsabit, Mandera, Wajir, Garissa, Tana River, Narok, Samburu, Isiolo, Lamu and Kajiado. The Act provides that the deceased’s community or tribal law shall be applied in the listed areas if they did not have a will.

Ripples International submitted that Section 32 goes against the constitutional provision for equal protection, rights and fundamental freedoms in particular the provisions of  Article 27 (4) that provide: “The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.”

On Section 35 and 36 of the Succession Act, Ripples International submitted that Section 45 (2) and (3) of the constitution provides for the right to marry and equality of marriage partners. 

“…This therefore means that any provision that undermines the right of a party to marry or to equality of a party to a marriage, by treating one party differently, contravenes the constitution.” 

The petitioner added that the Act promotes gender based inequality and discrimination against women in Kenya.

Recently, a significant ruling was made by Justice Munyao Sila of the Environment and Lands court in Kisii. The judgement grants parents the freedom to sell their land without consulting their children. The decision came after two children, Jacques Orangi Ayienda and Donald Bosire Ayienda, accused their father, John Ayienda Orangi, of selling their ancestral land to Edward Makori Oganga and Stephen Amwolma Magogo without their consent.

The children argued that their father only held the title deed in their trust as the property was ancestral and, therefore, could not sell it. However, Justice Munyao stated in his judgement that the property was not ancestral land held in trust for the family, and thus, the father was free to deal with it as he pleased.

According to the judge, there was no law supporting the contention that children have a right to compel their parents to consult them when dealing with their land. He further stated that children should not have a notion that what belongs to their parents is theirs as well.

The judge noted that it was despicable and outrageous for a child to assert that his or her father or mother must subdivide his or her land in a particular way and proceed to sue the parent because they do not wish to deal with the land in the proposed way. The judge went on to say that the conduct of the children in this case was shameful and abominable. Despite their father taking them to school and educating them up to the university level, they relentlessly hounded him and sued him before the chief, the clan, and the tribunal.

The judge concluded by regretting to tell the children that they have to live with the fact that their father decided to sell the land. He reminded them that their father raised them to be responsible adults and took care of them when they were wobbly and helpless tots. Therefore, they cannot be heard to complain. This judgement is likely to set precedent in many land disputes between parents and their children.

The Environment and Land Court recently made a landmark ruling stating that the National Lands Commission (NLC) does not have the authority to revoke title deeds, particularly on land that has never been public or government land. This ruling has significant implications for property ownership in Kenya and has been the subject of much discussion and analysis in legal circles.

The ruling was made by Judge Addraya Dena, sitting in Kwale, in a case involving six Kwale residents who had petitioned the court for several orders, including one declaring them as the legally registered owners of a 2.4-hectare property and another adopting the NLC determination issued in 2017. The NLC determination revoked all titles held by Mr Ebrahim Ali Awale and Dhanjal Properties, returning ownership to the six complainants. Mr Daima Nassoro, Mr Yusuf Ali, Mr Abdalla Mwakutula, Mr Salimu Mpwata, Mr Omari Mohamed and Mr Mohamed Athumani had asked for orders directing the Chief Land Registrar to issue them a title deed for the land in their suit filed in 2018.

The six complainants argued that the property was registered in their names in 1974 after they paid the requisite charges. However, the property was later registered in the names of Mr Awale and Dhanjal Properties Limited without their knowledge and authority. The complainants then filed a complaint with the NLC, and after hearing the case, the commission ruled in their favour on October 30, 2017. The commission then ordered that all of Mr Awale's and Dhanjal Properties Limited's titles be revoked and the suit property be returned to the six plaintiffs.

However, the Chief Land Registrar objected to the suit, arguing that because it did not participate in the NLC proceedings, it should not have been joined. The court noted that even though the case was not defended, the six complainants were required to prove that they had a valid claim to the suit property. The court also observed that the only documentary proof presented before it was the NLC determination, which was not supported by any other evidence, such as the history of the property since the time of adjudication, the adjudication search, and the green card allegedly proving their registration.

The Judge stated in her decision that it behoved the court to review the documentation and test their veracity against the oral testimony and make its own determination. The court found that the complainants had failed to produce the documentary proof necessary to prove their claim to the property. As a result, the court was unable to declare them as the legal and beneficial owners of the property.

Furthermore, the Judge ruled that the NLC does not have the power to revoke title deeds, particularly on land that has never been public or government land. The power to revoke title deeds is vested in the Registrar, and the commission can only recommend revocation. The Judge also observed that the commission has jurisdiction to review all land grants or dispositions, but only for public land or land that was previously public but was later converted to private land.

The Judge did, however, observe that the provisions of Article 67 (2) of the Constitution supersede the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the NLC Act, which gives the commission the authority to make a determination after hearing land-related disputes. This article empowers the commission to conduct investigations into current or historical land injustices, either on its own initiative or in response to a complaint, and to recommend appropriate redress.

The court also noted that there was no evidence mentioned in the NLC award to show that the land was ever converted to public land. The ruling concluded that the NLC has no authority to revoke title deeds for private land that was never public or government land, and only the Registrar has that power.

In the case of Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2020, the Court of Appeal in Kisumu made a significant ruling regarding the school rules and regulations of St. Anne's Primary School, Ahero. The court declared that the mandatory 30-minute Mass held every Friday morning, which applied to all students regardless of their religious beliefs, was unconstitutional, indirectly discriminatory, and invalid.

The court further stated that the school's decision to expel the first appellant based on her religious views constituted indirect discrimination and a violation of her right to education and dignity.

The appellants, represented by Philip Okoth and the Law Society of Kenya, filed a petition against the school's requirement for non-classroom interfaith activities, which they believed infringed upon their freedom of religion. However, the school's board of management disregarded their concerns and maintained that all students were obligated to adhere to the rules and regulations.

Consequently, the school expelled the first appellant for refusing to attend the mandatory 30-minute Catholic Mass every Friday morning. Although she was later readmitted under the condition that she would attend the Mass, she was required to sign a declaration to confirm her compliance.

In its decision, the Court highlighted that the school could have made accommodations without facing any significant difficulties by exempting the appellants from the Friday Mass. In accordance with the principle of reasonable accommodation, the school should have adjusted its rules to allow all students to practice their respective religions while still adhering to the school's regulations.

The Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in the case of Mohamed Fugicha Vs The Methodist Church in Kenya (Suing through its registered trustee) & 3 Others [2016] eKLR, stating:

"We firmly believe that schools are not isolated from the freedoms and liberties protected by the Constitution. Students do not relinquish their constitutional rights upon entering the school gate only to reclaim them upon leaving. Fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be relinquished in the name of education. Schools cannot supersede the Constitution, and neither can anyone else. We strongly assert that students in Kenya possess and exercise the full range of guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights, and they should not be deprived of these rights simply because they are within the confines of a school."

The Competition Authority of Kenya has pursuant to an investigation, penalised nine (9) steel manufacturers a total of KES. 338,849,427.89. The companies engaged in cartel conduct whose effect was to increase the cost of construction of homes and infrastructure by artificially inflating the prices of steel products. Contextually, steel products such as bars, pipes, beams, and sheets, account for over 20% of the total cost of constructing a house.

The Authority has penalised Nail and Steel Products Limited, Brollo Kenya Limited, Blue Nile Wire Products Limited, Tononoka Rolling Mills Limited, Devki Steel Mills, Doshi & Hardware Limited, Corrugated Steel Limited, Jumbo Steel Mills, and Accurate Steel Mills Limited for engaging in price fixing, through agreeing and collectively setting prices and price adjustment timelines. 

Further, the aforementioned firms, with the exception of Accurate Steel Mills, have been penalized for output restriction by agreeing to limit imports of certain steel components, thereby causing an artificial shortage that raised prices. Price fixing and output restriction are illegal under the Competition Act since they hinder competition in markets (business-customer environment). Competitive markets benefit consumers through lower prices, increased choice, and quality of goods and services. Business rivals are also motivated to innovate. 

Dr. Adano Wario, the Authority’s Acting Director-General, said the penalties are proportionate to the offence, specifically harm to consumers who have been decrying the high cost of steel products in the country. The penalty imposition is meant to restore competition in the sector and deter companies from deploying anti-competitive practices as a business strategy. 

“Cartels are conceived, executed, and enforced by businesses to serve their commercial interests, and to the economic harm of consumers. In this matter, the steel firms illegally colluded on prices and margins as well as output strategies,” said Dr. Wario. 

“This penalty is the highest-ever imposed by the Authority and it should send a clear message that cartel conduct is illegal under the Competition Act. In a liberalized market like ours, the forces of supply and demand should signal prices, free from manipulative business practices. Agreements between competitors seek to defeat this fundamental facet of a free economy.”

The Government of Kenya through the Ministry of Trade & Economic Planning working in collaboration with the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry issued a joint detailed commentary on proposed amendment of Business Laws on 1st November 2024 via the National Treasury’s website and across print media publication, highlighting proposed amendments across 18 statutes. 

The Proposed amendments intend to affect among others: Investment Promotion Act, the Standards Act, Special Economic Zones Act, Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute Act, Employment Act and Central Bank of Kenya Act introducing new definitions, fees,  regulations and penalties

The Business Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 represents a comprehensive overhaul of Kenya’s business and regulatory landscape. By addressing key areas such as, financial regulation and manufacturing standards, the Bill aims to create a more robust, transparent, modern and attractive environment for businesses and investors. These amendments promise enhanced economic stability and growth, but they also introduce significantly increased compliance obligations for businesses, necessitating strategic and operational adjustments to align with the new legal frameworks. As these provisions come into effect, stakeholders across the Kenyan economy will need to navigate the changes by engaging regulatory authorities and legal counsel to fully leverage the opportunities presented by the amended laws and to address potential challenges before they arise.

In January 2025, the High Court of Kenya issued a landmark judgment in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others v Attorney General; Director of Public Prosecutions & 3 others, signaling a seismic shift in the nation’s approach to mental health. At the core of the petition was Section 226 of the Penal Code that criminalized attempted suicide as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment, a fine, or both. 

Key to the Court’s reasoning was the recognition of suicidal ideation as a manifestation of mental illness, as defined under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act, 2022. The Court’s reliance on Article 2(4) of the Constitution—which invalidates any law inconsistent with the Constitution—and its emphasis on Kenya’s obligations under international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, reflect a progressive, human-rights-based approach to mental health. Central to the Court’s reasoning was the application of Articles 27, 28, 43, and 54 of the Constitution. Article 27 guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination, while Article 28 affirms the inherent dignity of every individual. The criminalization of attempted suicide violates these principles by stigmatizing individuals with mental health issues and subjecting them to punitive measures instead of care. Moreover, Article 43’s guarantee of the right to the highest attainable standard of health—including mental health—underscores the state’s duty to provide supportive rather than punitive responses to mental health crises.

The Court’s judgment also drew on international law, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which obligates states to eliminate discriminatory laws and practices. Kenya’s ratification of the CRPD and its recognition of mental health as a disability under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act, 2022, reinforced the Court’s determination that Section 226 was out of step with both domestic and international legal standards.

Importantly, the judgment acknowledged the societal stigma surrounding mental health and the chilling effect of criminal sanctions on individuals seeking help. Through the framing attempted suicide as a health issue rather than a legal infraction, the Court affirmed its commitment to transformative constitutionalism, a doctrine that prioritizes the lived realities of marginalized groups and seeks to advance substantive equality. This decision contrasts sharply with the Supreme Court’s earlier reluctance to adopt a similar approach in cases involving mental health. By anchoring its reasoning in the Constitution’s progressive values and Kenya’s international obligations, the High Court set a precedent for compassionate and forward-looking jurisprudence.

On 21st March, 2025 the Court of Appeal ruled that the Correct interpretation of Section 5 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2013. 

In Kenya Revenue Authority v. David Mwangi Ndegwa (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2019), the Court of Appeal clarified the taxation of commercial property under Kenya’s Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2013. The central issue was whether the sale of commercial property attracts VAT or if it falls under the tax exemptions provided in Paragraph 8, Part II of the First Schedule of the VAT Act.

The case arose after the respondent, David Mwangi Ndegwa, purchased a commercial property from Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd. for Kshs. 70,000,050.00. The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) required him to pay Kshs. 11,200,080.00 in VAT, which he did under protest. He later filed a lawsuit arguing that all land transactions, whether involving residential or commercial buildings, should be VAT-exempt. The High Court ruled in his favor, finding the VAT Act ambiguous and ordering KRA to refund the VAT paid.

On appeal, KRA argued that the VAT Act clearly distinguishes between land, residential premises, and commercial premises, and that only land and residential premises are explicitly exempt from VAT. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that commercial buildings are taxable, and the High Court erred in its interpretation. The judges emphasized that the definition of "land" in Article 260 of the Constitution applies only when the context allows. Since the VAT Act separately defines "residential premises" and excludes commercial buildings from the exemption, VAT was correctly levied on the transaction.

The court further ruled that there was no ambiguity in the VAT Act, and the High Court’s broad interpretation was incorrect. It reaffirmed that where tax laws are clear, courts must uphold them without introducing unintended exemptions. As a result, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision, ruled that KRA was not required to refund the VAT, and ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the appeal.

This judgment provides critical clarity for property buyers, sellers, and tax professionals. It confirms that while land and residential premises are VAT-exempt, commercial properties remain subject to VAT, reinforcing compliance with Kenya’s tax laws.