Judicial Review in Kenya: The Keroche Industries Case and the Limits of Retrospective Taxation

Introduction

The relationship between taxpayers and revenue authorities is founded not only on statutory obligations but also on the constitutional principles of fairness, legality, transparency, and accountability. While the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) is empowered to assess and collect taxes, that mandate must always be exercised within the confines of the law.

The landmark decision in Keroche Industries Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others remains one of Kenya's most authoritative decisions on judicial review and administrative law. The High Court held that public authorities cannot exercise statutory powers arbitrarily or retrospectively where doing so undermines legitimate expectations and violates the rule of law.

The judgment has become a leading authority on the doctrines of legitimate expectation, administrative fairness, proportionality, abuse of power, and the celebrated Wednesbury principle of reasonableness established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

For businesses, investors, tax practitioners, and public institutions alike, the case continues to define the constitutional limits of governmental decision-making.

The Background of the Dispute

Keroche Industries Limited was licensed by the Customs Department in the late 1990s to manufacture fortified wines. Following approval by the relevant tax authorities, its products were classified under Tariff Heading 22.04, attracting excise duty at the applicable rate of 45%.

For approximately nine years, the company operated its business, priced its products, and paid taxes in accordance with this tariff classification. During this period, KRA consistently accepted the classification without objection.

In November 2006, however, KRA informed the company that its products had allegedly been incorrectly classified and ought instead to have fallen under Tariff Heading 22.06, attracting a significantly higher tax rate of 60%.

Rather than applying the revised classification prospectively, KRA reassessed Keroche's tax liability retrospectively for the years 2002 to 2005 and demanded payment of approximately Kshs. 1.1 billion within fourteen days.

The company challenged the decision through judicial review proceedings before the High Court.

The Legal Issues Before the Court

The Court was invited to determine several significant questions of administrative law, including:

• Whether judicial review was available despite the existence of alternative statutory tax dispute mechanisms.
• Whether KRA could lawfully apply a revised tariff classification retrospectively.
• Whether the taxpayer had acquired a legitimate expectation arising from KRA's longstanding conduct.
• Whether the retrospective tax demand constituted an abuse of statutory discretion.
• Whether the decision satisfied the standards of reasonableness established under the Wednesbury doctrine.

Each of these issues has had a lasting influence on Kenyan public law.

Judicial Review and the Right to Access the Courts

KRA argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because Keroche had failed to exhaust the available tax dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the Court.

The High Court rejected this argument.

The Court recognised that while statutory tribunals ordinarily provide the primary avenue for resolving specialised disputes, judicial review remains available where public authorities exercise power unlawfully or in violation of constitutional principles.

The Court emphasised that access to justice is a constitutional safeguard that cannot be curtailed merely because an alternative statutory procedure exists. Where the legality, fairness, or rationality of administrative action is under challenge, the High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction.

This principle has since become central to Kenyan administrative law and continues to guide courts when determining whether exceptional circumstances justify bypassing statutory remedies.

Legitimate Expectation: Protecting Public Confidence

One of the most enduring contributions of the Keroche decision is its comprehensive treatment of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

For nearly a decade, KRA had consistently accepted the applicant's tariff classification. The company had invested significant capital, structured its operations, developed pricing models, and prepared long-term business projections based on the understanding that the classification had been approved by the tax authority.

The Court held that this conduct gave rise to a legitimate expectation deserving of legal protection.

Although public authorities may correct genuine administrative mistakes, they must do so fairly and prospectively unless legislation expressly authorises retrospective action.

Businesses should not bear the financial consequences of governmental inconsistency where they have acted in good faith upon official representations.

The doctrine therefore serves not merely to protect private interests but also to preserve public confidence in governmental decision-making.

Retrospective Taxation and the Rule of Law

The Court was particularly critical of KRA's attempt to impose tax liabilities retrospectively.

Retrospective taxation creates uncertainty because it alters legal consequences after taxpayers have already arranged their affairs in reliance upon the existing legal position.

The Court observed that certainty is an indispensable component of the rule of law.

Investors require predictable legal and regulatory environments to make commercial decisions. If public authorities could revisit settled tax positions years later, businesses would operate under perpetual uncertainty.

The Court therefore concluded that retrospective application of the revised tariff was:

• irrational;
• unreasonable;
• arbitrary;
• oppressive;
• discriminatory;
• procedurally unfair;
• an abuse of power; and
• inconsistent with constitutional principles.

Although Parliament may expressly legislate with retrospective effect in limited circumstances, administrative agencies cannot ordinarily achieve the same result through discretionary decision-making.

The Wednesbury Principle and Administrative Reasonableness

The Court's reasoning drew extensively from the English decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, one of the foundational authorities on judicial review.

Lord Greene MR explained that a public authority acts unreasonably where it:

• fails to consider relevant matters;
• considers irrelevant matters;
• misdirects itself in law;
• acts arbitrarily; or
• reaches a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.

This standard has become universally known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Applying those principles, the High Court concluded that KRA had exercised its discretion irrationally.

Among other considerations, the authority failed to appreciate:

• the taxpayer's long-standing reliance on the approved tariff;
• the devastating financial consequences of retrospective reassessment;
• the absence of procedural fairness; and
• the broader constitutional obligation to exercise statutory powers reasonably.

The demand for more than Kshs. 1 billion payable within fourteen days was found to exemplify administrative arbitrariness.

Abuse of Power and Proportionality

The Court also examined whether KRA's conduct amounted to an abuse of public power.

In answering that question, the Court considered:

• the abrupt reversal of the tariff classification;
• the retrospective nature of the assessment;
• the enormous financial burden imposed;
• the potential destruction of the applicant's business; and
• the absence of adequate procedural safeguards.

While acknowledging the importance of tax collection in funding public services, the Court held that revenue generation cannot justify unlawful administrative conduct.

Public authorities must pursue legitimate governmental objectives using lawful, proportionate, and procedurally fair means.

The Rule of Law and Constitutional Governance

One of the most frequently cited passages in the judgment concerns the constitutional significance of the rule of law.

The Court observed that Kenya operates under a system of limited government in which every public authority is constrained by law.

Administrative convenience cannot replace legality.

Likewise, certainty of law is indispensable to attracting investment and promoting economic development.

The Court affirmed that judicial review exists to ensure that governmental power remains accountable to constitutional standards rather than administrative preference.

Why the Decision Still Matters Today

Nearly twenty years later, the Keroche decision continues to shape Kenyan jurisprudence.

Its principles extend far beyond tax disputes.

The case is routinely cited in matters involving:

• judicial review;
• legitimate expectation;
• abuse of discretion;
• administrative fairness;
• procedural propriety;
• constitutional governance;
• proportionality;
• irrational administrative action; and
• the rule of law.

The judgment has also influenced courts interpreting Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, both of which reinforce the constitutional obligation that administrative action be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.

Practical Lessons for Businesses

The decision offers several important lessons for businesses operating in Kenya.

Maintain complete regulatory records. Official approvals, licences, correspondence, and tax assessments may become critical evidence should disputes arise.

Act promptly. Businesses should challenge unlawful administrative decisions without delay to preserve available legal remedies.

Understand your rights. Regulatory agencies possess extensive powers, but those powers are subject to constitutional limitations and judicial oversight.

Seek specialist legal advice. Early legal intervention can often prevent disputes from escalating into significant financial liabilities.

Conclusion

The decision in Keroche Industries Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others remains a cornerstone of Kenyan administrative law and judicial review.

The judgment reaffirmed that governmental authority is not absolute. Public bodies must exercise statutory powers consistently with legality, fairness, rationality, proportionality, and the rule of law.

By applying the enduring principles of Wednesbury reasonableness, the High Court confirmed that retrospective administrative action—particularly where it imposes significant financial liabilities after years of official acquiescence—will rarely withstand judicial scrutiny.

For taxpayers, businesses, investors, and public authorities alike, the decision stands as a powerful reminder that constitutional governance demands more than the lawful collection of revenue. It requires that every exercise of public power be transparent, predictable, fair, and accountable.

How We Can Help

Our Public Law and Tax Disputes practice regularly advises clients on judicial review proceedings, tax assessments, administrative appeals, constitutional petitions, regulatory compliance, and disputes involving the Kenya Revenue Authority and other public bodies.

If your business is facing an unlawful administrative decision, retrospective tax assessment, or regulatory action, our team can provide strategic legal advice and robust representation to protect your rights and commercial interests.

 Disclaimer: This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before acting on any information contained in this article. No lawyer-client relationship is created by virtue of reading this publication. 

When Does a Purchaser's Possession Become Adverse? The Court of Appeal Clarifies the Law in Ouko v Kageni

Introduction

The Court of Appeal's decision in Ouko & another (Suing as the Personal Representatives and Administrators of the Estate of Jason Atinda Ouko (Deceased)) v Kageni (Sued as the Personal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Muhika Kageni (Deceased)) (KECA 2126 (KLR)) marks an important development in Kenya's law on adverse possession.

The judgment clarifies a long-standing question: Can a purchaser who enters into possession under a sale agreement later acquire title by adverse possession? More importantly, it identifies the point at which possession under a contract ceases to be permissive and becomes adverse for purposes of the Limitation of Actions Act.

The decision has significant implications for landowners, purchasers and legal practitioners, particularly where land sale transactions remain incomplete for many years.

Background

The dispute arose from a 1977 agreement for the sale of five acres of land in Karen, Nairobi, to be excised from a larger parcel. Although the purchaser took possession and eventually completed payment of the purchase price, the vendor failed to complete the subdivision and transfer of title.

More than three decades later, the Court was called upon to determine whether the purchaser's occupation had matured into ownership by adverse possession.

When Does a Sale Agreement Stop Protecting the Vendor?

Sections 7, 13 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act govern claims for adverse possession in Kenya.

Traditionally, courts have followed the principle in Sisto Wambugu v Kamau Njuguna, namely that possession under a sale agreement is permissive and therefore cannot be adverse while the contractual relationship subsists.

However, the Court of Appeal clarified that such permission is not indefinite.

Although the parties' agreement required the vendor to complete the subdivision within forty days, the vendor failed to do so. Rather than treating the agreement as immediately terminated, both parties continued performing the contract, with payments continuing until 1996.

The Court held that once the purchaser had paid the full purchase price, the legal relationship fundamentally changed. At that stage, the vendor no longer retained an equitable right to possession but instead held the legal title as a constructive trustee pending formal transfer.

Consequently, if the vendor fails to transfer title within twelve years after receiving full payment, the purchaser's possession may become adverse and the vendor's right to recover the land may be extinguished under the Limitation of Actions Act.

Is Formal Repudiation Necessary?

One of the arguments advanced by the appellants was that the sale agreement had never been formally repudiated and therefore the purchaser remained a licensee.

The Court rejected this argument.

Instead, it held that courts must examine the objective conduct of the parties, rather than merely asking whether a formal notice terminating the agreement was issued.

Where a purchaser has fulfilled their contractual obligations, particularly by paying the full purchase price, and the vendor fails to complete the transfer for an extended period, the law recognises that the purchaser's equitable rights have crystallised. The vendor cannot indefinitely rely on the existence of the contract to prevent time from running under the Limitation of Actions Act.

This aspect of the judgment is particularly significant because it confirms that the statutory limitation period may begin without any formal rescission or repudiation of the contract.

What Constitutes Possession?

The Court also addressed an important evidentiary issue regarding possession.

The appellants argued that because the purchaser had relocated abroad and no longer physically occupied the land, she had lost possession.

The Court disagreed.

Reaffirming its earlier decision in Peter Mbiri Michuki v Samuel Michuki, the Court observed that possession need not always involve continuous physical occupation. Possession may also be constructive, provided the claimant continues to exercise control over the property.

In this case, the purchaser had developed the land, planted trees and maintained control through an employee. These acts were sufficient to demonstrate uninterrupted possession despite her physical absence from Kenya.

The decision therefore confirms that courts will assess the overall evidence of occupation and control rather than focusing solely on physical presence.

Can Adverse Possession Be Claimed Over Part of a Larger Parcel?

The Court also considered whether adverse possession could be established over an unregistered portion of a larger parcel.

Although the trial court had awarded only 2.5 acres, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the purchaser had occupied the entire five-acre portion identified under the 1977 sale agreement.

The Court therefore awarded the full five acres.

This finding confirms that an adverse possession claim may succeed over a defined portion of a larger parcel, even where formal subdivision has not yet taken place, provided the occupied area can be sufficiently identified.

Practical Implications

The decision has several practical implications for landowners and purchasers:

• A sale agreement does not indefinitely prevent a claim for adverse possession.
• Time may begin to run once the purchaser has paid the full purchase price and the vendor fails to complete the transfer.
• Formal repudiation of the contract is not always necessary; the parties' conduct may determine when possession becomes adverse.
• Constructive possession may satisfy the requirement for continuous occupation where the claimant maintains effective control over the property.
• Vendors who delay completion for extended periods risk losing legal title altogether.

Conclusion

The decision in Ouko v Kageni represents an important clarification of Kenyan land law. While possession under a sale agreement is initially permissive, that permission is not perpetual. Once a purchaser has fulfilled their contractual obligations and the vendor fails to complete the transfer within the statutory period, the Limitation of Actions Act may operate to extinguish the vendor's title.

For landowners, the judgment serves as a reminder that prolonged inaction can have serious legal consequences. For purchasers, it confirms that equity will protect those who have honoured their contractual obligations but are denied legal title through the vendor's default. Ultimately, the decision reinforces the importance of promptly completing land transactions and provides greater certainty on when contractual rights give way to proprietary rights acquired through adverse possession.

 

Process of Registering a Company in Kenya

The registration of a company in Kenya is undertaken through the eCitizen platform and involves the following steps:

1. Conduct a Name Search and Reservation
• Log into your eCitizen account and submit a proposed company name for approval by the Registrar of Companies.
• Upon approval and reservation of the name, proceed with the company registration process.
2. Complete Form CR1
• Fill in the Company Registration Form (CR1), providing details of the proposed company, its directors, shareholders, and registered office address.
3. Upload Directors' and Shareholders' Details
• Provide particulars of all directors and shareholders.
• Upload certified copies of the following documents:
• National Identity Card or Passport;
• KRA PIN Certificate;
• Recent coloured passport-size photograph.
• All directors and shareholders must be registered on the KRA iTax platform.
4. Provide Shareholding Information
• Indicate the shareholding structure of the company, including the number and allocation of shares among shareholders.
5. Complete Form CR8
• Submit the Notification of Directors' Residential Addresses (Form CR8), indicating the residential addresses of all directors.
6. Prepare the Statement of Nominal Capital
• Declare the company's nominal share capital and share distribution.
7. Pay the Prescribed Registration Fees
• Pay the applicable government registration fees through the eCitizen platform.
8. Submit the Application for Registration
• Submit the completed application and supporting documents to the Registrar of Companies for review and approval.

Upon successful review and approval, the Registrar will issue a Certificate of Incorporation, confirming the company as a duly registered legal entity under the Companies Act, 2015.

Disclaimer: The registration requirements and fees may be amended from time to time by the Registrar of Companies. Applicants should verify the current requirements on the official eCitizen portal before submitting an application.

Adverse Possession in Kenya: Key Takeaways from the Court of Appeal's Decision in Mwalimu & 6 Others v Halal & Another [2025] KECA 1186 (KLR)

Introduction

The doctrine of adverse possession remains one of the most significant principles in Kenya's land law. It allows a person who has occupied another person's land openly, continuously, and without permission for a period of at least twelve years to apply for ownership of that land.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Mwalimu & 6 Others v Halal & Another [2025] KECA 1186 (KLR) has provided important clarification on the requirements for a successful claim of adverse possession and serves as a reminder that mere occupation of land for a long period is not enough.

The Case

The dispute concerned Plot No. Mombasa Island Block XV/31, which had been occupied by the family of the late Fadhili Mwalimu for several decades. The family operated a motor vehicle garage on the property and argued that they had occupied the land continuously for over thirty years without paying rent. On this basis, they sought to be declared owners of the property through adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding that the family's occupation originated from a tenancy arrangement entered into by their late father with the previous owner of the property. As a result, the occupation was initially permissive and could not automatically become adverse simply because many years had passed.

Key Principles Confirmed by the Court

1. Long Occupation Alone Is Not Enough

One of the most important findings of the Court was that occupation of land for more than twelve years does not automatically entitle a person to ownership through adverse possession.

A claimant must demonstrate that their occupation was:

• Open and visible;
• Continuous and uninterrupted;
• Exclusive; and
• Hostile to the rights of the registered owner.

The court emphasized that the quality of possession is just as important as the length of time spent on the land.

2. A Tenant Cannot Easily Claim Adverse Possession

The Court reaffirmed that occupation arising from a tenancy, lease, or licence is permissive. A person who occupies land with the owner's consent cannot claim adverse possession unless they clearly demonstrate that they no longer recognize the owner's title and begin occupying the property in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights.

In this case, even if the relationship between the parties became hostile following a rent demand in 2002, the suit was filed in 2010, only eight years later. This fell short of the statutory twelve-year requirement.

3. Fraud and Adverse Possession Are Different Claims

The appellants also argued that the respondents had acquired title fraudulently. However, the Court held that a party cannot simultaneously challenge the validity of a title and claim adverse possession against the same title.

An adverse possession claim assumes that the registered title is valid but has become vulnerable due to prolonged adverse occupation. A fraud claim, on the other hand, seeks to invalidate the title altogether. The two claims cannot comfortably coexist.

Practical Lessons for Landowners and Investors

The decision provides valuable lessons for landowners, buyers, developers, and investors.

Take Possession Promptly

Purchasers who acquire land should take physical possession as soon as possible after completion. Merely obtaining a title deed may not be sufficient protection if the property remains occupied by third parties for many years.

Buyers should ensure that they:

• Obtain vacant possession;
• Conduct regular inspections;
• Secure the property where necessary; and
• Maintain records of possession and occupation.

Monitor Expired Leases and Tenancies

Landowners should be particularly cautious where tenants remain on the property after the expiry of a lease or where occupants continue using the land without paying rent.

Failure to take action against unauthorized occupation may eventually expose the owner to adverse possession claims if the occupation continues uninterrupted for the statutory period.

Formalize Occupation Arrangements

Many disputes arise from informal arrangements involving relatives, friends, caretakers, or long-term occupants. Landowners should document such arrangements through written agreements to avoid uncertainty regarding the nature of the occupation.

Proper documentation can be critical in demonstrating that the occupation remained permissive and never became adverse.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Mwalimu & 6 Others v Halal & Another reinforces the principle that adverse possession involves more than simply occupying land for a long period. The claimant must prove that the occupation was open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse to the interests of the registered owner for at least twelve years.

For landowners, the judgment highlights the importance of actively managing property, documenting occupation arrangements, and taking prompt action where unauthorized occupation occurs. For occupiers seeking to rely on adverse possession, the case serves as a reminder that the legal threshold remains high and each claim will be determined on its specific facts.

As land ownership disputes continue to arise across Kenya, this decision provides useful guidance on the circumstances under which courts will recognize—or reject—claims based on adverse possession.

Disclaimer: This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before acting on any information contained in this article. No lawyer-client relationship is created by virtue of reading this publication.

Fraud Vitiates Title: Court of Appeal Affirms That Banks and Third Parties Must Exercise Heightened Due Diligence in Land Transactions: The Case of Musa v Musa & 6 Others [2025]

Fraud Vitiates Title: Court of Appeal Affirms That Banks and Third Parties Must Exercise Heightened Due Diligence in Land Transactions

Introduction

In a significant decision reinforcing the integrity of Kenya's land registration system, the Court of Appeal in Musa v Musa & 6 Others [2025] reaffirmed the long-standing principle that fraud vitiates title. The Court held that titles obtained through fraudulent means are incapable of conferring lawful ownership, regardless of subsequent transfers to third parties, including financial institutions.

The judgment serves as an important reminder that banks, purchasers, and other parties dealing with land must undertake thorough due diligence before relying on registered titles.

Background

The dispute arose from a series of transfers involving family land. The appellant, Eric Musa, challenged the legality of the transactions, alleging that the 1st respondent had fraudulently caused the property to be transferred into her name through forged and irregular registration processes.

Following the initial transfer, the land was subsequently transferred to other parties and ultimately became the subject of dealings involving a bank. The appellant contended that the entire chain of transactions was founded on fraud and therefore incapable of conferring valid title.

Despite evidence of irregularities, the High Court dismissed the claims, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Issues Before the Court

The Court was called upon to determine:

1. Whether the impugned transfers and registrations were tainted by fraud;
2. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's claims despite evidence of procedural and legal irregularities; and
3. Whether third parties, including a bank that had acquired interests in the property, could rely on the registered titles notwithstanding the alleged fraud.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found that the transactions in question were fraudulent.

The Court held that:

• The transfers and registrations were procured through unlawful and irregular processes;
• The resulting titles were invalid and incapable of conferring lawful ownership;
• The Land Registrar and other parties involved acted outside the confines of the law; and
• Subsequent transactions founded on the defective titles could not be sustained.

Consequently, the Court invalidated the impugned titles and affirmed the appellant's claim to the property.

Key Legal Principles

1. Fraud Vitiates Title

The Court reiterated that fraud strikes at the root of title. Where a title is obtained through fraud, forgery, or other unlawful means, it loses the protection ordinarily afforded to registered proprietors under Kenya's land registration framework.

2. Registered Title Is Not Absolute

While Kenyan land law generally protects registered proprietors, that protection is not available where fraud is established. The doctrine of indefeasibility of title does not extend to titles obtained illegally, unprocedurally, or through corrupt schemes.

3. Third Parties Must Conduct Meaningful Due Diligence

A notable aspect of the decision is the Court's treatment of third-party interests. The Court underscored that banks and purchasers cannot blindly rely on the existence of a title deed without undertaking adequate investigations into the legitimacy of the title.

Where the root of title is defective, subsequent interests founded upon that title may also be vulnerable to challenge.

Implications for Land Transactions

The decision carries significant implications for landowners, investors, lenders, and conveyancing practitioners:

• Financial institutions should strengthen due diligence procedures before accepting land as security.
• Purchasers should verify not only the existence of title documents but also the history and legality of previous transfers.
• Land registrars and public officials must strictly comply with statutory procedures governing registration and transfer of land.
• Parties involved in land transactions should maintain comprehensive records to demonstrate the legitimacy of their dealings.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Musa v Musa & 6 Others [2025] reinforces a fundamental principle of Kenyan property law: fraud cannot be used as a foundation for valid ownership rights. The judgment sends a clear message that courts will prioritize lawful ownership and the integrity of the registration process over the apparent finality of registration.

For banks, purchasers, and other stakeholders, the case underscores the importance of rigorous due diligence and serves as a cautionary reminder that a registered title may not always be beyond challenge where fraud is involved.

Disclaimer: This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before acting on any information contained in this article. No lawyer-client relationship is created by virtue of reading this publication.

 

Revocable vs Irrevocable Trusts in Kenya: Which One Is Right for Your Estate Plan?

Revocable vs Irrevocable Trusts in Kenya: Understanding the Difference

Introduction

As more Kenyans engage in estate planning and wealth preservation, trusts have become an increasingly popular legal tool for protecting assets and ensuring a smooth transfer of wealth to future generations. However, many people are unfamiliar with the different types of trusts and how they work.

Two commonly discussed categories are revocable trusts and irrevocable trusts. Understanding the distinction between them can help individuals and families make informed decisions about succession planning, asset protection, and family wealth management.

What Is a Trust?

A trust is a legal arrangement in which a person (the settlor) transfers assets to a trustee, who manages those assets for the benefit of designated beneficiaries.

Assets that may be placed in a trust include:

• Land and real estate
• Shares and investments
• Business interests
• Cash and bank accounts
• Intellectual property
• Other valuable assets

Trusts are increasingly used in Kenya as part of succession planning to avoid family disputes, preserve wealth, and provide for dependants.

What Is a Revocable Trust?

A revocable trust, sometimes referred to as a living trust, is a trust that the settlor can amend, alter, or terminate during their lifetime.

Under this arrangement, the settlor retains substantial control over the trust assets and may change beneficiaries, appoint new trustees, or even dissolve the trust altogether.

Advantages of a Revocable Trust

1. Flexibility

The settlor can modify the trust as family circumstances change. For example, new beneficiaries can be added, or assets can be removed from the trust.

2. Continued Control

The settlor remains actively involved in managing and directing how trust assets are handled.

3. Estate Planning Benefits

A revocable trust can help organise family assets and facilitate the administration of an estate upon death.

Disadvantages of a Revocable Trust

1. Limited Asset Protection

Because the settlor maintains control over the assets, creditors may still be able to pursue those assets in certain circumstances.

2. Limited Tax Advantages

The assets generally remain part of the settlor's estate and may not provide significant tax planning benefits.

What Is an Irrevocable Trust?

An irrevocable trust is a trust that generally cannot be altered, revoked, or terminated once it has been established, except in limited circumstances allowed by law or by the trust instrument.

When assets are transferred into an irrevocable trust, the settlor gives up ownership and control of those assets.

Advantages of an Irrevocable Trust

1. Asset Protection

Since the assets are no longer owned by the settlor, they may be better protected from future creditors and legal claims.

2. Wealth Preservation

Irrevocable trusts can help preserve family wealth across generations by preventing misuse or fragmentation of assets.

3. Succession Planning

They provide a structured framework for distributing assets according to the settlor's wishes.

4. Protection of Vulnerable Beneficiaries

An irrevocable trust can be used to provide for minors, persons with disabilities, or beneficiaries who may not be capable of managing large inheritances.

Disadvantages of an Irrevocable Trust

1. Loss of Control

The settlor generally cannot reclaim trust assets or freely alter the terms of the trust.

2. Reduced Flexibility

Changing family or financial circumstances may be difficult to accommodate after the trust has been established.

Revocable vs Irrevocable Trust: A Quick Comparison

Feature	Revocable Trust	Irrevocable Trust
Can be changed by settlor	Yes	Generally No
Can be cancelled	Yes	Generally No
Settlor retains control	Yes	No
Asset protection	Limited	Stronger
Estate planning benefits	Yes	Yes
Wealth preservation	Moderate	Strong
Flexibility	High	Low

How Trusts Are Used in Kenya

In Kenya, trusts are commonly used for:

• Family succession planning
• Protecting family-owned businesses
• Holding investment properties
• Managing assets for children
• Supporting persons with special needs
• Preserving generational wealth

Trusts can also help reduce disputes that often arise during the administration of estates after the death of a family member.

Which Type of Trust Is Right for You?

The choice between a revocable and irrevocable trust depends on your objectives.

A revocable trust may be suitable if you want flexibility and continued control over your assets.

An irrevocable trust may be appropriate if your primary goals are long-term asset protection, wealth preservation, and structured succession planning.

Every family's circumstances are different, and the most suitable trust structure will depend on factors such as the nature of the assets, family dynamics, business interests, and long-term goals.

Conclusion

Trusts are powerful estate planning tools that can help Kenyan families protect wealth, provide for loved ones, and ensure a smooth transfer of assets from one generation to the next.

While revocable trusts offer flexibility and control, irrevocable trusts provide stronger asset protection and long-term wealth preservation benefits. Before establishing any trust, it is advisable to seek professional legal advice to ensure the structure aligns with your personal and family objectives.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals should seek independent legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

Constructive Dismissal and Unlawful Extension of Probation: Lessons from Rosemary Nyambura Wachira v Commercial International Bank Kenya Ltd [2026] KEELRC 654 (KLR)

Introduction

The decision in Rosemary Nyambura Wachira v Commercial International Bank Kenya Ltd [2026] KEELRC 654 (KLR) is a significant addition to Kenya’s employment jurisprudence, particularly on the issues of probationary employment and constructive dismissal.

In this case, the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) addressed two critical questions: whether an employer may lawfully extend an employee’s probation period after its expiry, and whether a hostile and degrading work environment may amount to constructive dismissal. The Court’s findings reinforce the statutory protections afforded to employees under the Employment Act, 2007 and the constitutional guarantees of fair labour practices and human dignity.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Rosemary Nyambura Wachira, was employed by Commercial International Bank Kenya Ltd in May 2023 as the Senior Branch Manager at the bank’s Westlands Branch. Her employment contract provided for a probationary period of six months.

According to the petitioner, she performed her duties diligently and received commendation from senior management during her probation period. However, upon the lapse of the probation period in January 2024, the respondent neither confirmed her employment nor communicated any dissatisfaction regarding her performance.

Instead, in February 2024, the respondent purported to retrospectively extend her probation period. The petitioner further alleged that she was subsequently reassigned to a lower position with reduced remuneration and later transferred to another role that lacked proper structure and support. She contended that she was subjected to unfair treatment, unreasonable performance expectations, humiliation, and sustained pressure intended to force her resignation.

The petitioner ultimately resigned in September 2024, citing emotional distress and deteriorating health. She thereafter instituted proceedings alleging constructive dismissal and violation of her constitutional rights.

Issues Before the Court

The Court was called upon to determine:

1. Whether the respondent lawfully extended the petitioner’s probation period after its expiry;
2. Whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to unfair labour practices and constructive dismissal; and
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the remedies sought.

The Court’s Analysis

Unlawful Extension of Probation

The Court held that the petitioner’s probation period had expired without any lawful extension or communication declining confirmation. Consequently, the petitioner automatically became a confirmed employee by operation of law.

Justice Wasilwa observed that the respondent’s attempt to retroactively extend the probation period in February 2024 contravened section 42 of the Employment Act. The Court emphasized that an employer cannot extend probation after the contractual probation period has lapsed without prior communication and compliance with statutory requirements.

The Court therefore found that the purported extension constituted an unfair labour practice.

Constructive Dismissal

In determining whether constructive dismissal had occurred, the Court examined the cumulative conduct of the employer. Among the factors considered were:

• the inconsistency between positive appraisals and subsequent negative treatment;
• the petitioner’s demotion and salary reduction;
• unclear and unsupported job assignments; and
• the introduction of a Performance Improvement Plan despite earlier positive evaluations.

The Court concluded that the respondent had created an undignified, humiliating, and intolerable working environment that effectively forced the petitioner to resign.

The ELRC reaffirmed the principle that constructive dismissal occurs where an employer’s conduct fundamentally breaches the employment relationship and leaves the employee with no reasonable option but to resign.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

The Court further held that the respondent’s conduct violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 28 and 41 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

Article 28 guarantees the right to human dignity, while Article 41 protects the right to fair labour practices. The Court found that the respondent’s treatment of the petitioner was degrading and inconsistent with constitutional and statutory labour protections.

Determination and Remedies

Having found in favour of the petitioner, the Court declared that she had been constructively dismissed and subjected to unfair labour practices.

The Court awarded:

• compensation equivalent to eight months’ salary;
• damages for violation of constitutional rights;
• pension dues;
• costs of the suit; and
• interest.

Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees

This decision offers important guidance for employers and employees alike.

First, employers must ensure strict compliance with section 42 of the Employment Act regarding probationary contracts. Any extension of probation must occur before the expiry of the probation period and must be properly communicated.

Second, the judgment underscores that workplace hostility, humiliation, arbitrary demotions, and unfair performance management processes may collectively amount to constructive dismissal.

Finally, the case reaffirms that employment relationships in Kenya are not governed solely by contractual principles but are also subject to constitutional standards of dignity, fairness, and equitable treatment.

Conclusion

The decision in Rosemary Nyambura Wachira v Commercial International Bank Kenya Ltd serves as a timely reminder that employers must exercise managerial authority within the confines of both statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The judgment strengthens employee protections against retroactive probation extensions and hostile workplace practices, while reinforcing the constitutional imperative of fair labour practices in Kenya’s evolving employment landscape.