Landmark legal proceedings to watch this year and why they matter

Nakuru-based surgeon Gikenyi Magare and others filed a case arguing that the Infrastructure and Sovereign Funds were illegal and unnecessary. [File, Standard]

From education, politics, government policies, business, crime, social life and health, 2026 ushers a defining moment for the country, starting as early as this week when learners go back to school.

Kenyans woke up to 2026 with yet unresolved issues that are likely to shape the country.

To start with, all eyes will be on the case filed by lawyer Peter Mung’oma, who wants the court to intervene and block the government from reducing the amount of money (capitation) it pays for students.

Mung’oma, in his case, filed before the High Court, argued that a reduction of the capitation will eventually disrupt and kill the education future for millions of students whose parents cannot afford to pay school fees.

He asserted that as more than 3.6 million learners return to school from January 5, their fate now lies with the court, as the Ministry of Education had allegedly informed the country about the reduction of funding.

He wants the court to temporarily bar the Education and Treasury Cabinet Secretaries and the Attorney General from implementing the decision slashing secondary school learners’ funds pending the determination of his case.

Capitation Formula

According to the lawyer, the government’s actions in changing the capitation formula are unlawful as they were made without consulting stakeholders, mirroring illegalities previously identified by the High Court in the University Funding Model case.

“Schools are bound to reopen on January 5, 2026, and unless this honourable court intervenes urgently, the constitutional rights of millions of learners will be irreparably harmed,” the petition reads.

He further claimed that the reduction in capitation, from Sh22,244 per learner to an average of Sh 12,000 to 15,000, effectively undermines the constitutional right to free and compulsory basic education guaranteed under Article 53(1)(b).

Historically, he said, schools have relied on a structured disbursement schedule, 50 per cent in the first term, 30 per cent in the second, and 20 per cent in the third, to plan for essential operations such as procuring learning materials, paying support staff, and covering utilities.

For the 2024/2025 academic year, Mung’oma alleges that schools received significantly less than the statutory capitation.

In Term 1, learners were expected to receive Sh 11,122 each but only Sh 8,818 was disbursed, leaving a shortfall of Sh 2,304 per learner.

In Term 2, the expected Sh 6,673 was reduced to Sh 3,471, creating a deficit of Sh 3,202 per learner.

Term 3 disbursements were completely withheld, with no funds released against the expected Sh 4,449, adding to a cumulative deficit of Sh 9,955 per learner for the year.

According to him, with approximately 3.6 million learners enrolled in public secondary schools, the total arrears owed to schools for this academic year alone amount to about Sh 35.8 billion.

Mung’oma added that when this is combined with historical arrears from the 2022-2023 and 2023/2024 financial years, the cumulative debt exceeds Sh 64 billion, rendering the Free Day Secondary Education programme financially unsustainable.

“Each public secondary school learner has been denied Sh9,955 of their lawful entitlement. With 3.6 million learners affected, the total arrears owed to schools stand at approximately Sh 35.8 billion.’’

Closely tied to the case, although unrelated, President William Ruto Singapore’s dream will either be bad or good this year.  

The court has already blocked his government from starting or implementing the Sh5 trillion Infrastructure and Sovereign Funds.

On one hand, Nakuru based surgeon Gikenyi Magare, United Kingdom-based human rights defender Eliud Karanja Matindi, Philemon Nyakundi and Dishon Keroti filed a case against Attorney General, Treasury Cabinet Secretary, Senate, the National Assembly and the Controller of National Budget, arguing that the two funds were illegal and unnecessary.

Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek) followed with a separate case, claiming that establishing a limited liability company to run the Sovereign Fund was circumventing oversight and public participation.

Government functions

Cofek claimed that the move amounted to running government functions outside the Constitution.

President Ruto claimed that he has a plan to put Kenya in the same level as Singapore. For this, a sovereign fund and infrastructure fund were created to allegedly easy country’s thirst for internal and external loans for development.

 In court, however, the group led by Dr Magare argued first, the infrastructure fund was a threat to Equalisation Fund. They added the Executive had allegedly bypassed Parliament while establishing the two funds.

 According to them, the Kenya Kwanza administration allegedly created an avenue for private persons to illegally benefit from the coffers.

 In his supporting affidavit, Magare said that the government has no powers to create a private company to run and spend tax payers money.

He asserted that no one knows how the shareholding will be allocated and who will oversee or audit the affairs of the company.

Much closer to Ruto’s heart is the frozen Sh207 billion health deal with the UK.

In his case, Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah argued that the deal had circumvented Parliament’s oversight and created extra-budget expenditure without the approval by the second arm of government.

He said the framework indicated there would be no legal consequences if the US violated the law.

According to him, the non-binding nature meant that it prioritised America’s geopolitical interests over equitable Universal Health Care.

“The rushed signing, bypassing Parliament, usurps legislative authority and undermines the sovereignty of the people who delegated sovereign power to Parliament,” said the Senator, adding that the terms, conditions, obligations, procurement modalities, liabilities, and dispute resolution mechanisms of the deal have not been disclosed to the public.

He also claimed that framework creates direct and indirect public finance obligations, including potential co-financing, tax waivers, and recurrent expenditures, which have allegedly not been subjected to parliamentary appropriation

Share Aggregate Data

In response the Attorney General Dorcas Oduor claimed that the agreement between the two countries was that Kenya would share aggregate data and not personal information.

She stated that the exercise involves the removal or hiding of personal data, which will be used solely for evaluation, public reporting, and planning.

Away from the policies, there is the politics of the day. The cases before the court start from the President’s doorstep, including the Cabinet Secretaries, and how the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) tallies the presidential poll.

 Law Society of Kenya (LSK) deputy president Mwaura Kabata and Embakasi East lawmaker Babu Owino want Cabinet Secretaries out of politics.

 The two lawyers singled out Public Service Cabinet Secretary Geoffrey Ruku, whom they claimed was actively campaigning for United Democratic Alliance (UDA) aspirant Leonard Muriuki Muthende in the Mbeere North by-elections.

Mwaura said that their fear is that the Cabinet Secretaries (CSs) had continuously violated the Constitution by part in partisan politics.

“The constitutional rights we intend to protect are continuing to be violated. Members of public offices are continuing to use those offices in furtherance of political interests,” said Mwaura.

Lawyer Abna Mango told the court that Mwaura and Babu were apprehensive that CSs are using public resources and State platforms to drum up support for allies of President Ruto’s UDA candidates ahead of the upcoming polls and his 2027 second-term bid.

“What we are witnessing is a dangerous collision between public duty and private political interest,” they state in the court papers.

Video clips annexed to the case show several ministers at rallies, from Malava to Bondo, Garsen to Turkana, pledging loyalty to President Ruto’s re-election bid and endorsing party candidates in the looming mini-polls scheduled for next month.

In the case, Mwaura and Owino, Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor, Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi, CSs and Inspector-General of Police Douglas Kanja. The Council of Governors, LSK and Katiba Institute have been enjoined as interested parties.

According to the petition, CSs have “crossed a constitutional red line” by attending funerals and political rallies, endorsing candidates, and publicly declaring allegiance to political parties.

In the meantime, the IEBC commission is also embroiled in a battle with the United Opposition and Omtatah over the presidential election tallying.

Kalonzo Musyoka, Rigathi Gachagua, Fred Matiang’i, Mithika Linturi, and Justin Muturi, argued that once results are collated and announced at constituencies, the national tallying centre should adopt them without alteration.

According to them, re-tallying and re-verifying the results creates an opportunity for potential manipulation.

Verifiable process

Their lawyer, Gitobu Imanyara, said re-tallying and re-verifying creates opportunities for manipulation and confusion over which results are final. With the election just over a year away, his clients are seeking an accurate and verifiable process.

Imanyara argued that the current legal framework allows parallel verification not anchored in the Constitution, creating a separate, superior process exclusively for presidential results

He further argued that the commission has allegedly failed to verify results at constituencies before electronic transmission.“There is no constitutional basis for treating presidential results differently. The uniform electoral architecture under Article 86 is being violated. The separate verification is arbitrary and discriminatory,” he said. 

Away from politics, surrogates’ battle before the High Court will determine how Kenyans get children through in vitro fertilisation(IVF).

 In one of the cases, Dr Sukhija Sarita, the proprietor of Myra IVF Clinic, wants the court to block the Directorate of Criminal Investigations from pursuing her following a complaint by a couple that the child they got through surrogacy did not match the colour of what they wanted.

The specialist denied any wrongdoing adding that she had met her end of bargain.

 In the meantime, as the country grapples with how to deal with the surrogacy arrangements, Sarita is also separately embroiled in Kenya’s most expensive surrogacy case.

A woman whom we codename June for ethics purposes is demanding Sh 300 million compensation from fertility expert Sarita and her clinic Myra IVF Centre. In her case, she accuses the doctor and the clinic of implanting an unauthorised and unknown embryo that was not her choice, resulting in a child with a different blood group and a lifelong deformity.

Jane, in her case, said that she purposely brought sperm from Seattle in the US after repeated failures with local sperm banks and lack of information about locals’ medical history, genetic traits and physical characteristics.

She claimed she spent more than Sh200,000 for the sperm, adding that she had a guarantee of good results following her personal research, albeit being costly.

According to court documents, the woman’s motherhood journey with the clinic allegedly started sometime in January 2020. She said that after several tests, the doctor recommended assisted reproduction procedures.

“Over the course of this treatment, and on my third IVF round, it became apparent that I did not have viable eggs and as a result, I was advised by the defendants that for any chance of a successful outcome, I would require both the egg donor and a sperm donor to proceed with assisted reproduction,” she said.

June further stated that, with the guidance of the clinic’s personnel, she then selected a female Kenyan egg donor, whom she personally knew. “The donor was medically screened and vetted by the defendants to ensure that she was both eligible and compatible for the procedure,” she said, adding that her choices were meant to maximise the chances of becoming a mother.

However, she said that one of the twins was not what she had planned and hoped to get.

Jane claimed she sought investigations from the College of American Pathologists in South Africa, which allegedly confirmed that the minor was indeed a boy and did not share any biological relationship with the donor of the sperm she got in the US.

Special care

She argued that since the child requires special care in his lifetime, the clinic’s alleged negligence turned her life upside-down. Jane said she was working abroad but had to remain in Kenya to take care of him. She claimed that it created a burden for her family and led to depression, knowing that she allegedly got the wrong embryo.

“ I believe that had the defendants acted within the standard of reasonable skill, care and knowledge towards discharging the duty of care towards my treatment, the outcome of the IVF procedure would have been totally different and the results would not have negatively impacted my family and the second plaintiff’s minor’s quality of life,” she argued.

There is a separate case filed by a Somali nationals, who claim that their child was swapped at birth. American couple has sued the NMC Fertility, Lotus Fertility Agencies, the Coptic hospital and a Kenyan surrogate.

In their case, the couple claims that they travelled to Kenya in 2024 for the IVF procedure at NMC clinic.

They gave their sperm and ova, and had an agreement in place that the embryo would be transferred into a gestational surrogate.

They say that they met the Kenyan woman who would carry the pregnancy to term.

Their baby was born on January 19, 2025, at Coptic Hospital, which they allege was chosen by the fertility clinic and Lotus agency, and they were overjoyed with their new bundle of joy.

Turned into a nightmare

Nevertheless, they said that they waited for a moment, which turned into a nightmare.

The complainant alleged that after the baby was born, they noticed that it was not consistent with their background, but held on to the child given to them by the adoption process.

The couple further claimed they then sought to travel back to America and were required to process documentation for baby and needed to prove that it was theirs.

In their suit papers they say that after consulting medical experts they were advised to perform a DNA test, which was allegedly done on February 2025.

They allege that the results showed that the baby was not genetically related to either of them.

In crime, the Edward Kamau Gituku’s case will be a trial to watch. Gituku was arrested after detectives raided a house where 25 men, allegedly on their way to Russia, were found.

He has denied the allegations and is currently out on bail.

During an earlier hearing on an application to detain him, the investigating officer claimed that a promised monthly pay of Sh250,000 was used to lure the men to leave their homeland.

The men told authorities that they had paid agents to help secure military jobs in Russia. Most of the men, however, said they had been kept in the apartments for more than two days before their rescue.

Gituku denied the charges.

Graft cases to watch include the Sh1 billion maize saga which will be heard afresh by the High Court.

Justices Gatembu Kairu and Aggrey Muchelule unanimously agreed that there was need for the High Court to hear the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission claim that the documents used to award Erad Supplies and General Contractors Ltd millions of shillings from the public coffers were allegedly forged. 

The maize saga stems from a 2004 deal between NCPB and Erad for supply of 40,000 tons of maize.

The judges said there was need to scrutinise the new evidence by the parastatal and the anti-graft body as it boiled down to whether the arbitration award in favour of Waluke and Wakhungu’s company, Erad Supplies and General Contractors Ltd, was legal or not.

“We are satisfied that the additional evidence, which alleged that the award was procured through misrepresentation and was not enforceable in law, raised material and substantive issues that require interrogation,” the bench headed by Justice Kairu ruled.

The third judge in the case, Justice Fred Ochieng, died before the judgment was delivered.

The maize saga stems from a 2004 deal between NCPB and Erad for supply of 40,000 tons of maize.

Erad in its case claimed that it was unable to supply the maize as the NCPB failed to open a letter of credit in its favour. It asserted that this was against their agreement.

EACC and NCPB want the Sh560 million award given to Erad set aside.

In the meantime, the Albert Omondi Ojwang murder story will continue to feature in the corridors of justice.

CS Samson Talam and five junior officers  James Mukwana, Peter Kimani, John Ngige Gitau also known as Kinara, Gin Ammitou Abwayo alias Gilbeys, and Brian Mwaniki Njue were charged over his death at the Central Police Station.

The 30-year-old teacher was killed in June, sparking nationwide anti-government protests.

Away from all that, a case filed by Odhiambo Onyango might alter the way Kenyans take

Odhiambo has sued the Ministry of Health, the Kenya Bureau of Standards, the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Authority, East African Breweries, Keroche Breweries, Kenya Wine Agencies Limited, London Distillers Kenya, Wow Beverages, Dion Wines and Spirits East Africa, and 245 Brewing Company.

He claims that the World Health Organization has already established that consumption of ethyl-based alcohol increases the risk of several cancers, including breast cancer in women, as well as colorectal, oesophageal, liver, mouth, throat and laryngeal cancers. 

In business, the filed before the High Court by Paul Mugo might sink government’s bid to sell off its shares at Safaricom.

He claimed that there was no public participation nor was there valuation to ascertain how much the shares the government was shedding would fetch.

According to Mugo, the AG and the CS have not subjected the shares sale to competitive bidding, which would allegedly give any prospective buyers a chance to bid. He stated that it would have fetched more money if the shares were floated publicly instead of offering them to the second-largest shareholder, Vodacom.