Tuesday, December 16, 2025

Overview of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025 (Kenya)

The Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025 (GOE Act) is a recently enacted statute that fundamentally reforms the manner in which the Government of Kenya owns, controls, and supervises its commercial entities, formerly referred to as state corporations or parastatals. The Act marks a deliberate departure from the traditional parastatal model established under the State Corporations Act (Cap. 446) by introducing a corporate, commercially driven framework grounded in modern company law and corporate governance principles.

At its core, the GOE Act seeks to reposition government-owned commercial entities as profit-oriented, professionally managed enterprises, while preserving the State’s ability to pursue clearly defined public policy objectives in a transparent and accountable manner.

 

Key Legal and Structural Reforms Introduced by the Act

1. Conversion of State Corporations into Public Limited Companies

The Act mandates the reconstitution of existing commercial state corporations into public limited companies (PLCs) incorporated under the Companies Act, 2015 (formerly Cap. 486). This restructuring subjects Government Owned Enterprises (GOEs) to the same legal standards that apply to private companies, including fiduciary duties of directors, financial disclosure obligations, and insolvency rules.

This reform aligns public enterprises with Article 227 of the Constitution, which emphasizes efficiency, transparency, and value for money in public entities, and reduces reliance on bespoke statutory frameworks that previously insulated parastatals from market discipline.

2. Clarification of State Ownership and the Role of the National Treasury

The Act designates the National Treasury as the central shareholder and owner representative of all GOEs. This resolves long-standing ambiguities where line ministries exercised overlapping and often politicized control over state corporations.

By consolidating ownership at the Treasury, the Act promotes:

  • Clear separation between ownership, policy formulation, and regulation;
  • Professional shareholder oversight; and
  • Consistency in performance expectations across GOEs.

This approach reflects international best practice and supports Article 201 of the Constitution, which requires responsible and prudent management of public finances.

3. Independent, Competence-Based Boards and Enhanced Corporate Governance

The GOE Act introduces a skills-based, independent board architecture, reducing ministerial discretion in appointments. Directors are selected based on competence, experience, and integrity, and are subject to defined tenure, performance evaluation, and fiduciary responsibilities under company law.

This governance framework:

  • Reinforces the duty of directors to act in the best interests of the company;
  • Minimizes political interference and patronage; and
  • Enhances accountability consistent with Chapter Six of the Constitution on Leadership and Integrity.

4. Commercial Orientation and Performance Accountability

GOEs are required to operate on a commercially viable and self-sustaining basis, with a clear emphasis on profitability, efficiency, and competitiveness. The Act introduces rigorous performance contracts between the National Treasury and each enterprise, setting measurable financial and operational targets.

Where a GOE is required to undertake Public Service Obligations (PSOs)—such as providing non-commercial services in the public interest—these obligations must be:

  • Explicitly defined;
  • Costed; and
  • Separately funded and ring-fenced.

This mechanism prevents the historical problem of commercial inefficiency being masked by vague public mandates and unchecked exchequer support.

5. Controls on the Establishment of New Government Owned Enterprises

To curb the proliferation and duplication of state entities, the Act requires that any proposed GOE be supported by a feasibility study demonstrating:

  • Economic necessity;
  • Commercial viability; and
  • Absence of overlap with existing entities.

This reform promotes rationalization of the public sector and reinforces fiscal discipline, particularly in light of Kenya’s constitutional commitment to sustainable public debt management.

 

Practical and Legal Implications of the Act

For Government Owned Enterprises

GOEs must now function in a manner comparable to private-sector companies, prioritizing revenue generation, cost control, and long-term sustainability. Reliance on government bailouts is discouraged, except where justified through properly structured PSOs.

For Corporate Governance and Management

The Act introduces clear distinctions between:

  • The shareholder (National Treasury),
  • The board of directors, and
  • executive management.

This clarity strengthens internal accountability and reduces governance failures that historically plagued parastatals.

For the Public and the Exchequer

From a public interest perspective, the Act promises:

  • Improved service delivery through better-managed enterprises;
  • Greater transparency and public accountability;
  • Reduced fiscal burden on taxpayers; and
  • Enhanced public value from state assets.

 

Conclusion

The Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025 represents a paradigm shift in Kenya’s management of state-owned commercial entities. By anchoring public enterprises in company law, professional governance, and performance accountability—while maintaining structured mechanisms for public service delivery—the Act establishes a coherent and modern legal framework for the establishment, control, and oversight of GOEs.

In doing so, it aligns Kenya’s public enterprise sector with constitutional principles of good governance, fiscal responsibility, and economic efficiency, marking a decisive move away from politically driven parastatal administration toward performance-based public ownership.

 

Monday, December 8, 2025

On preliminary objections: The case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd

Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
Court: Court of Appeal for East Africa (Sir Charles Newbold P., Law J.A., Duffus V-P.)
Area of Law: Civil Procedure – Preliminary Objections

1. Background of the Case

The dispute between Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd and West End Distributors Ltd concerned land use and alleged trespass. However, the substantive dispute is not the reason this case is famous.

Its importance lies in the Court’s definitive clarification of what constitutes a “preliminary objection” under civil procedure—now the leading authority in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and other commonwealth jurisdictions.

2. Facts of the Case

  • West End Distributors sued Mukisa Biscuit for trespass, seeking damages and an injunction.
  • The defendant, Mukisa Biscuit, raised a preliminary objection claiming that the plaintiff had no cause of action because the defendant’s possession of the land was lawful.
  • The plaintiff argued that this was not a pure point of law but a factual issue requiring evidence.

This dispute led the Court to define the nature and limits of preliminary objections.

3. Issues Before the Court

The main issue was:

What is the proper scope and nature of a preliminary objection in civil procedure?

Specifically:

  • Should a preliminary objection involve disputed facts?
  • Can it be raised when evidence must be examined?
  • What matters can be dealt with through preliminary objection?

4. Holding (Decision)

The Court of Appeal held that:

A valid preliminary objection must:

  1. Raise a pure point of law,
  2. Be based on uncontested, admitted facts, and
  3. Be capable of disposing of the whole suit if upheld.

The Court dismissed Mukisa Biscuit’s preliminary objection because it required factual investigation, not a purely legal determination.

5. Rule of Law Established

A preliminary objection is:

“A pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit.”
(Sir Charles Newbold P.)

Examples include:

  • Jurisdiction
  • Res judicata
  • Limitation of actions
  • Locus standi
  • Misjoinder / non-joinder (in some cases)

Notably, it cannot be raised if:

  • Factual disputes exist
  • Evidence must be examined
  • Affidavits must be considered

6. Court’s Reasoning

1. Purpose of Preliminary Objections

The Court observed that preliminary objections serve to save time and costs by allowing courts to dismiss hopeless cases early.

2. Misuse of Preliminary Objections

Sir Charles Newbold criticised how advocates misuse preliminary objections to:

  • Delay cases
  • Avoid substantive hearing
  • Force the court to enter factual inquiries improperly

The Court stressed that such tactics were improper.

3. Need for a Clear Definition

To prevent abuse, the Court established a strict definition:

  • Only pure questions of law qualify.
  • The court must assume the opponent’s facts are true.
  • If evidence is required, the point cannot be a preliminary objection.

4. Consistency across commonwealth jurisdictions

The ruling aligned East African jurisprudence with broader commonwealth procedural standards.

7. Significance of the Case

A. Procedural Landmark

The case is the foundational authority on preliminary objections across:

  • Kenya
  • Uganda
  • Tanzania
  • Other East African commonwealth jurisdictions

B. Practical Implications

It guides advocates in:

  • Knowing when to raise preliminary objections
  • Avoiding misuse of procedural tools
  • Structuring pleadings and responses properly

C. Judicial Efficiency

The case protects courts from:

  • Unnecessary delays
  • Misleading objections
  • Wasting judicial resources on factual disputes disguised as legal points

8. Application in Modern Practice

Courts today frequently rely on Mukisa Biscuit to:

  • Reject improperly raised preliminary objections
  • Clarify what constitutes a point of law
  • Dismiss matters at the outset where legal defects exist (e.g., lack of jurisdiction)

9. Key Quotes from the Judgment

On definition:

“A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings.”

On procedure:

“It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.”

10. Conclusion

Mukisa Biscuit v West End remains the leading case defining the nature of preliminary objections. It ensures that objections are raised only on pure points of law, prevents delay tactics, and promotes judicial efficiency.

The case is essential for:

  • Civil procedure exams
  • Legal practice
  • Litigation strategy
  • Procedural advisory services

Personal laws cannot override statutory rights relating to subsistence and welfare: The Case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Others, 1985 SCR (3) 844

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Others, 1985 SCR (3) 844

Supreme Court of India, 1985

1. Background and Significance

The Shah Bano case is one of the most important judgments in Indian family law and constitutional law. It involved a Muslim woman’s claim for maintenance (alimony) from her husband after divorce. The case sparked nationwide debate concerning:

  • Muslim Personal Law
  • Women’s rights under secular criminal law
  • The relationship between the Constitution and religious personal laws
  • The idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution

It remains a cornerstone case for discussions on gender justice and legal reforms.

2. Facts of the Case

  • Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband, Mohd. Ahmed Khan, through talaq (triple divorce) after more than 40 years of marriage.
  • Khan stopped providing maintenance, arguing that under Muslim Personal Law, he only had to pay mehr and maintenance during the iddat period (a short period post-divorce).
  • Shah Bano filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—a secular provision applicable to all citizens—seeking monthly maintenance.
  • Khan argued that because both parties were Muslim, the matter should be governed exclusively under Muslim Personal Law, not secular criminal law.

3. Issues Before the Court

  1. Does Section 125 CrPC apply to Muslim women, or are they governed solely by Muslim Personal Law?
  2. Can a divorced Muslim woman claim maintenance beyond the iddat period under secular law?
  3. What is the relationship between constitutional rights, personal laws, and the State’s obligation to move toward a Uniform Civil Code?

4. Arguments

Husband’s Arguments

  • Muslim Personal Law limits responsibility for a divorced woman to iddat and mehr.
  • Section 125 CrPC should not override religious law.
  • After talaq and payment of mehr, no further obligation existed.

Wife’s Arguments

  • Section 125 CrPC is religion-neutral.
  • A divorced woman unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance, irrespective of religion.
  • Personal law cannot deprive her of constitutional protections and statutory remedies.

5. Holding (Decision)

The Supreme Court held that:

1. Section 125 CrPC applies to all citizens, including Muslims.

Religion is irrelevant—the provision is a social justice measure to prevent destitution.

2. A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period if she cannot maintain herself.

The husband's statutory obligation continues until she is able to maintain herself.

3. Muslim Personal Law does not conflict with this conclusion.

The Court held that Muslim law requires fair treatment and does not prohibit post-iddat support in certain forms.

4. Strong observation on the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

The Court criticized government inaction and noted that India should move toward a UCC to achieve national unity and gender equality.

6. Reasoning

1. Criminal law prevails over personal laws where social welfare is involved

Section 125 CrPC is a criminal procedural law aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution.
It cannot be eclipsed by religious personal law.

2. Purpose of maintenance laws is protection, not interference with religion

The Court emphasized that maintenance is for survival, not for regulating religious practices.

3. Personal law itself does not bar extended maintenance

The Court interpreted Islamic principles in a progressive light, stating that the Qur’an encourages fair treatment and financial support for divorced women.

4. Constitutional principles demand gender justice

The Court referred to Articles:

  • 14 (Equality)
  • 15 (Non-discrimination)
  • 21 (Right to life and dignity)

These reinforce the rights of women to financial protection after divorce.

7. Legal Principle Established

  • Section 125 CrPC is a secular, overriding provision that applies to all Indian citizens, regardless of religion.
  • A divorced Muslim woman has the right to claim maintenance beyond the iddat period.
  • Personal laws cannot defeat statutory law designed for social justice.

8. Aftermath and Legislative Response

The judgment sparked intense political and religious debate.
In response, the Government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which attempted to limit Shah Bano–style maintenance but was later read expansively by courts to preserve women’s rights (Danial Latifi v. Union of India, 2001).

9. Academic Importance

The case is crucial in the study of:

  • Conflict between secular law and personal law
  • Gender justice in family law
  • Constitutional interpretation (especially Article 44 and UCC)
  • Judicial activism in social matters
  • Evolution of maintenance rights of divorced women in India

10. Legal Advisory Significance (For Practitioners & Clients)

  • Lawyers advising Muslim women can rely on Section 125 CrPC for maintenance claims, irrespective of personal law restrictions.
  • Clients should be informed that personal laws cannot override statutory rights relating to subsistence and welfare.
  • The case forms strong precedent supporting women’s rights in maintenance disputes.
  • Even after the 1986 Act, courts continue to interpret the law to ensure fair protection for divorced Muslim women.

The Constitution is the ultimate law, and any act that violates it can be challenged and overturned: The Case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1. Overview
Marbury v. Madison is one of the most important cases in United States constitutional history. Decided in 1803, it established the principle of judicial review, which gives courts—especially the Supreme Court—the power to declare laws made by Parliament/Congress unconstitutional. This case is frequently studied around the world because it clearly defines the role of the judiciary in a democratic system.

2. Background of the Case
At the end of his term, President John Adams appointed several officials, including William Marbury, to government positions. Although Marbury’s appointment was approved and signed, the commission (official document) was not delivered before the new president, Thomas Jefferson, took office.

Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission.
Marbury then went directly to the Supreme Court seeking an order (a writ of mandamus) compelling Madison to issue the document.

3. Key Questions Before the Court
The Supreme Court considered three main issues:

  1. Was Marbury entitled to his commission?Yes.
  2. If his right was violated, was there a remedy?Yes.
  3. Could the Supreme Court lawfully issue that remedy?No. The Court held it did not have jurisdiction because the law giving it that power was unconstitutional.

4. What the Court Decided (The Holding)
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that:

  • Marbury had a legal right to his commission.
  • The government’s refusal to deliver it violated that right.
  • However, the section of the Judiciary Act giving the Supreme Court power to issue such orders exceeded the limits placed by the Constitution. Therefore, the Court could not grant Marbury’s request.

5. Why This Case Matters
This case established judicial review—the idea that the courts can:

  • Interpret the Constitution, and
  • Strike down any law that contradicts the Constitution.

This made the judiciary an independent and equal branch of government, ensuring that no branch (executive, legislative, or judiciary) has unchecked power.

6. Practical Importance for Clients
For clients, the lesson of Marbury v. Madison is that:

  • The courts can protect individual rights when government actions overstep legal or constitutional limits.
  • There is always a legal mechanism for challenging decisions made without proper authority.
  • The Constitution is the ultimate law, and any act that violates it can be challenged and overturned.

Friday, November 21, 2025

Filing a Claim for any amount below KSh 1,000,000 in Kenya

1. Jurisdiction

A claim of e.g. KSh 100,000 falls within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

Court

     Monetary Jurisdiction

Small Claims Court

     Up to KSh 1,000,000

️ Therefore, your case should be filed in the Small Claims Court located within the area where:

  • The defendant resides or carries on business, or
  • The loan transaction occurred (see Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. Required Documents

To file your claim, you’ll need:

  • Statement of Claim (instead of a plaint, used in the Small Claims Court).
  • Verifying affidavit (confirming the truth of your claim).
  • List of documents and witnesses.
  • Demand letter (and proof of delivery).
  • Loan agreement or evidence of the loan (e.g., M-Pesa statements, bank records, or acknowledgment of debt).

Filing is done online via the Judiciary e-filing system: https://efiling.court.go.ke

3. Process Overview

  1. Send a demand letter to the borrower requesting repayment within 7–14 days.
  2. File the claim in the Small Claims Court through the e-filing portal.
  3. Serve the claim on the defendant after court acceptance.
  4. Defendant’s response: they must appear or file a response within 15 days.
  5. Hearing: Small Claims Court hearings are usually fast-tracked (concluded within 60 days).
  6. Judgment: If the court finds in your favor, it will order the defendant to pay KSh 100,000, plus interest and costs.

4. Enforcement

If the defendant still does not pay after judgment, you may enforce it through:

  • Warrants of attachment and sale (auctioning property), or
  • Garnishee orders (to recover money from their bank or employer).

 

5. Costs and Interest

The court may also award:

  • Interest on KSh 100,000 (as per the agreement or court rate of ~12% p.a.), and
  • Costs of the suit (usually modest in Small Claims matters).

 Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Hearings: Lessons from the Case of Downtown Hotel v Mutua

  Case Citation: Downtown Hotel v Mutua (Appeal 131 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 222 (KLR) (29 January2026) (Judgment) Introduction A recent d...