Faith Korir ⚖️

Lawyer|| Vice President Kenya School of Law Students' Council 26/27

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

Speak truth to power

[Caroline Oduor @OduorACaroline]

The High Court In re Estate of Chepkwony (Deceased), Succession Cause No. 194 of 1995 [2026] KEHC 12152 (KLR) (3 August 2026) has held that court may order DNA testing in a succession dispute after the death of the alleged parent where the claimant establishes an eminent necessity and sufficient factual foundation showing that scientific evidence is necessary to resolve a genuine dispute over paternity.

This can happen notwithstanding competing rights to privacy, provided the court balances those constitutional rights against the claimant's right to establish parentage and inheritance.

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

@sir_mutune Lucky bastard 😂

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

@Davidkmwenda Msm bado

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

Convincing myself that I'm not jealous of my friends who are done with their Orals is getting tougher by the day, sai wanapanga outfits za cocktail gala meanwhile bado naperuse Soppec 3 🥲

[🧩A•WUOR🌸 @Awuor_2]

Leo usiku ni mimi, SOPPEC na hiyo Advocates Act. Hakuna kupumzika hapa.

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

@wakilinaph "Ongeza ya study partner 👩🏾‍🦯"

[MR ORINA @wakilinaph]

Next stop, KSL 2026 Gala night

[baddient3ntions💜 @TLlium]

The great locking in mamae

[Paul MUKIIBI @pmpaulmukiibi]

A daughter has lost her claim to exclusive ownership of her late father’s property after the Court of Appeal of Kenya at Nyeri ruled that she had failed to prove that it had been gifted to her during his lifetime.

In Nabea v Kaburu (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1470 (KLR), decided on 24 July 2026, the respondent claimed that her father had given her Plot No. 33 Maua Municipality as a gift inter vivos and that she had developed, managed and collected rent from the property.

However, the Court found that she had not proved the alleged gift on a balance of probabilities. There was no sufficient proof of an agreement under which she was to take ownership, no proof that she had individually developed the property as claimed, and no proven desire, intention or action by the deceased to transfer it to her. The deceased had also previously denied giving her the property and had accused her of relying on forged documents.

The Court clarified that an incomplete gift inter vivos is not automatically invalid and may be sanctioned by a court where it is proved. However, the respondent’s development, management and collection of rent from the property did not, on the evidence presented, establish that ownership had been gifted to her.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and varied the grant of letters of administration so that all the deceased’s properties would be shared equally among the beneficiaries in accordance with the appellant’s proposed mode of distribution.

Read full decision: https://t.co/gLj58tECSC

[ROBA & ASSOCIATES LLP @AssociatesRoba]

🚨🚨Dignity Has No Dress Code: Court Condemns Forced Menstrual Verification and Orders KSH 1M compensation 🔥

What began with a discarded sanitary pad became a shocking workplace indignity. In Kangethe v Sun Power Products Ltd (Brown’s Food Company) [2026] KEELRC 2125 (KLR), Caroline Kangethe told the Employment and Labour Relations Court that senior female officers ordered about 35 female employees into a toilet and compelled them to expose their underwear to establish who was menstruating. The employer admitted that the incident occurred but argued that the officers were on a “frolic of their own,” had been dismissed after disciplinary proceedings, and that counselling was later offered. Kangethe also claimed discrimination in overtime allocation and constructive dismissal, saying the hostile environment forced her to resign.

Justice Jacob Gakeri held that the so-called “menstrual verification” was unlawful, unconstitutional, inhuman and degrading. It violated Kangethe’s rights to dignity, privacy and fair labour practices under Articles 28, 31 and 41 of the Constitution. The employer could not wash its hands of the incident: the Human Resource and Quality Assurance officers used authority entrusted to them by the company, at the workplace and against employees under their supervision. The Court therefore found the company vicariously liable and awarded Kangethe Kshs.1,000,000, plus costs. However, it rejected her claims of overtime discrimination, false imprisonment and constructive dismissal because she had not produced sufficient evidence and had continued working for almost a year before resigning through a letter that spoke positively about pursuing new opportunities.

This judgment sends a blunt message to employers: workplace dignity is not optional, and managers cannot turn authority into a licence to humiliate employees. A company may be liable even where it never expressly authorised the offensive conduct, provided there is a sufficiently close connection between the employees’ positions and the wrongdoing. Having a beautiful sexual-harassment policy tucked away in a manual is not, by itself, a shield. Employers must train supervisors, create trusted reporting channels and intervene effectively when abuses occur. At the same time, an employee alleging discrimination or constructive dismissal must bring concrete evidence showing unequal treatment or a serious contractual breach that directly caused the resignation.

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

@iamcheropmark Hapo kwa who for who nayo sina maoni😂😂

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

Nimekumbuka I was literally forced to learn this skill. I only complied because I love mursik otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to perfect it.

[Cherop🕸️ @iamcheropmark]

One of the main reasons why Kalenjin men don't marry from other tribes.
Who will "Sut sotet" like this if not a Kalenjin lady 😂

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

I just need to sit down and read all these tweets I've been bookmarking in preparation for orals.

[Uzalendo News @UzalendoNews_KE]

Court Strikes Down Ambira High School Damage Levy, Says Students Cannot Be Punished Collectively

In a landmark judgment, Justice D.K. Kemei ruled that the school could not compel students to pay the amount as a condition for returning to class, finding that the decision violated constitutional protections on equality, fair administrative action and the right to education.

https://t.co/Hht7OyX64a

[NM Law Advocates @nmlawadvocates]

⚖️ Did you know that the High Court in Nyakundi & 68 Others v Principal Secretary, Department of Planning, Ministry of Devolution & Planning & Another [2016] KEHC 467 (KLR) held that where a party intends to controvert factual allegations made on oath, the proper response is a replying affidavit, since grounds of opposition or legal objections cannot effectively rebut matters of fact?

#legal #kenya #law

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

@WanjiruNjogu02 All the best, Wakili🫶🏾

[NM Law Advocates @nmlawadvocates]

⚖️ Did you know that the Court of Appeal in Kenneth Nyaga Mwige v Austin Kiguta & 2 Others [2015] eKLR held that the mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit does not automatically render it admissible or prove its contents? The Court explained that a document must still satisfy the legal requirements of admissibility, relevance, and probative value before a court can rely on it in determining the issues in dispute.

#law #kenya #legal

[EMS Law LLP @Lexken_EMSLaw]

2️⃣ What the Penal Code actually requires for murder

Murder is not proved by a death and a suspect. Under sections 203 and 206 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must prove three things beyond reasonable doubt.

✅ That the accused caused the death of the deceased.
✅ That the death resulted from an unlawful act or omission.
✅ That there was malice aforethought, ie the intention to cause death or grievous harm, or knowledge that the act would probably cause it.

Motive is deliberately not on that list. Under section 9(3), motive is immaterial to criminal liability. So benefit alone can never be the offence. It can only ever be one strand of evidence pointing toward the elements that must be proved.

[Faith Korir ⚖️ @chilli_on_chips]

@Renaissance_Rio Kumbe kuna hopes hio class🥲

[Caroline Oduor @OduorACaroline]

The era of disguising permanent jobs as "casual" employment is steadily coming to an end.

In Kenya County Government Workers Union v Embu County Government & Another (Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1481 (KLR) (24 July 2026), the Court of Appeal has held that where employees are continuously engaged for long periods under rolling short-term contracts or are described as casual employees while performing work of a permanent nature, the court will look beyond the contractual label to the true substance of the employment relationship.

Such employees acquire statutory protection under section 37 of the Employment Act and Article 41 of the Constitution, and the employer cannot rely on artificial contractual arrangements to deny permanent employment rights.