Most impactful court rulings of 2025

In a year defined by debates over land, livelihoods and inequality, the country’s courts issued a wave of judgments that reshaped the legal landscape.

From reaffirming the rights of smallholder farmers to striking down statutory time-limits on land-justice claims, courts demonstrated willingness to uphold constitutional rights over legislative or statutory restrictions.

The rulings carried wide-ranging consequences for land justice, food sovereignty, institutional oversight, and the balance of power between citizens and state or corporate interests.

This review highlights some of the most significant rulings of 2025, each carrying deep implications for communities, investors, smallholders and Kenya’s institutional future.

Indigenous seed rights

One of the most celebrated rulings of the year came on November 27, 2025, when the High Court delivered a landmark judgment striking down key provisions of the Seed and Plant Varieties Act, 2012 (SPVA).

The decision effectively ends the criminalisation of saving, sharing and exchanging indigenous seeds, a critical shift for smallholder farmers across the country.

Justice Rhoda Rutto found that several punitive provisions of the SPVA violated constitutional rights to livelihood, culture and economic freedom.

Previously, the 2012 Act threatened farmers caught sharing or planting uncertified seeds with steep fines of up to Sh1 million or a two-year jail term.

The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) had defended the law as necessary for ensuring seed quality and maximising yields.

The judgment also invalidated legal powers granted under the law to seed inspectors to raid community seed banks and seize uncertified seeds.

The court held that by giving extensive proprietary rights to plant breeders while denying farmers the right to reuse or share seeds, the law unfairly favoured corporate interests over smallholders and traditional practices.

The ruling formally recognises Farmer-Managed Seed Systems (FMSS) as systems protected under the constitutional rights to food, culture, and survival, providing a powerful legal shield for practices that have sustained communities for generations.

Why this matters: For decades, many smallholder farmers in Kenya have relied FMSS: saving, storing, reusing and exchanging seeds within communities, practices adapted to local agro-ecological conditions, climate variability, and traditional knowledge.

The SPVA’s restrictions had threatened to criminalise these long-established practices.

With the court’s ruling, FMSS is restored as a protected right.

Farmer-activist petitioner Samuel Wathome described the decision as vindication.

“For years, farmers lived as if saving or sharing seeds was a crime; most of us cannot afford certified seeds or fertilisers sold by corporations. We have always bred and stored our own seeds, yet the law treated us like criminals for supporting each other. Today, that fear has been lifted,” he said.

Civil society and environmental advocates welcomed the verdict as a win for biodiversity, food sovereignty and climate resilience, arguing that indigenous seeds, more resilient to drought, pests and local conditions, are central to sustainable food systems.

NLC ruling - High Court lifts 5-year limit on NLC historical land claims

Land justice was another major theatre of court action in 2025. On November 28, 2025, the High Court ruled that Parliament cannot impose timelines on the National Land Commission (NLC) for investigating and redressing historical land injustices.

The court found that the law’s attempt to restrict NLC’s mandate to investigate historical claims within five years of the Act’s commencement conflicted with Articles 67(2)(e) and 68(c)(v) of the Constitution.

Justice Mwita emphasised that the review of grants or dispositions of public land is not a one-off function, and the Constitution does not provide or anticipate time limits on the NLC’s functions.

What the ruling changed: The challenged sections of the National Land Commission Act, 2012, namely sections 14(1), 14(9), 15(3)(e), 15(10) and 15(11), had established a five-year window from enactment for the NLC to process historical claims, and restricted remedies to a further three-year period.

The court declared these provisions unconstitutional, null, and void.

Justice Chacha Mwita held that constitutional Articles empowering the NLC (Articles 67 and 68) do not envisage statutory time limits.

The functions of reviewing past land grants and addressing historical injustices are continuous and cannot be curtailed by Parliament through arbitrary deadlines.

“It was not for Parliament to limit the period. This is to undermine the mandate of a constitutional body when the Constitution itself does not set timelines,” he ruled.

The case was filed in 2021 by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who challenged the relevant sections of the Act, arguing that the time limits hindered NLC’s ability to admit, register, and process historical land claims.

Omtatah said the provisions unfairly disadvantaged victims, many of whom are poor and cannot afford litigation in ordinary courts, and alleged that the restrictions could facilitate improper motives and promote corrupt practices.

The Attorney General and Parliament opposed the challenge.

They argued that under Article 68 of the Constitution, the review of grants and dispositions of public land could be regulated by legislation, and that the five-year time frame, extendable with parliamentary approval, was sufficient.

The ruling reaffirms the NLC’s full mandate, both present and historical, to investigate public land grants or dispositions.

It restores hope for victims of land injustices whose claims had been stalled or extinguished under the time bar, including communities dispossessed decades ago.

Activists and land rights advocates say the decision may lead to renewed submissions of long-pending claims, especially those related to colonial dispossessions, unlawful forest allocations or politically motivated land grabs.

Restoration of public land - The case of Karura Forest

In another critical land-related judgment, the courts reinforced that public forests and institutional lands cannot be unlawfully alienated.

In October 2025, the court ordered that a 7.11-hectare parcel of land carved out of the publicly gazetted Karura Forest, which had been issued to private parties, be reclaimed by the state.

"A declaration is hereby made that the alienation to the 1st and 2nd defendants (Gigiri Court Limited and Joseph Kamotho) of the land comprised in Nairobi Block 91/130/333 and 386 was irregular, fraudulent, and illegal and consequently null and void," Justice David Mwangi ruled.

The ruling declared that the allocation had been irregular, fraudulent, and illegal. The issued lease was annulled “ab initio” (from the beginning), meaning it had no lawful effect.

The court further ordered that the land be restored to the State and placed under the care of the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and the National Land Commission (NLC) for environmental rehabilitation.

The case, filed by the then Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC), the predecessor to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), in 2007, sought to reclaim the land after investigations revealed that it had been unlawfully excised from forest reserve land and allocated to private individuals in the 1990s.

The EACC argued that the allocation contravened the Constitution, the Government Lands Act, and environmental laws protecting public forests.

In its pleadings, the anti-graft body maintained that the land had been earmarked for the expansion of the Kenya Technical Trainers College (KTTC) and was under the control of the Forest Department before its irregular alienation.

The defendants, including Gigiri Court Limited, Joseph Kamotho, and former Commissioners of Lands Wilson Gachanja and James Raymond Njenga, argued that the allocation followed due process and that the land in question was not part of Karura Forest at the time of issuance.

They further claimed that subsequent development and investment on the property amounted to legitimate ownership rights protected by law.

However, the court dismissed these arguments, holding that the allocation was an abuse of authority and a violation of the public trust doctrine.

The judgment signalled strong rejection of past land-allocation malpractices, especially those that compromised public resources such as forests and institutional lands.

For environmental defenders, the decision reinforced the principle that forests and public lands are not commodities to be alienated lightly, especially when allocations bypass due legal process.

For communities and future generations, it reaffirmed public ownership of ecological and communal assets and set a precedent for the reversal of other dubious land deals.

Judgment on restoration of road maintenance funds to counties

On June 5, 2025, the High Court in Nairobi declared unconstitutional the decision to exclude counties from the Road Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF) allocations for 2024–25 and 2025–26.

The court ordered restoration of a conditional grant worth Sh10.5 billion.

The judgment delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi came in response to a petition filed by Issa Elanyi Chemao and others.

The petition, supported by an affidavit from Mary Mwiti, CEO of the Council of Governors, challenged two key decisions made by the National Assembly.

First was the exclusion of counties from the RMLF allocations on September 28, 2023.

The second was the removal of Sh10.5 billion in conditional road maintenance grants to counties on August 13, 2024.

The petitioners contended that both actions undermined devolution and violated constitutional provisions related to the division of government functions and the fair sharing of national resources.

According to the court, the responsibility for constructing and maintaining county roads clearly belongs to county governments under Section 18(b) and (c) of the Fourth Schedule and Articles 186(1) and 187(2) of the Constitution.

Yet, neither the Kenya Roads Board Act nor the Kenya Roads Act had been amended to reflect this constitutional mandate.

As a result, RMLF funds continued to be channelled to national agencies like KeRRA and KURA, bypassing the counties entirely.

The court’s ruling also recounted a series of developments that intensified the dispute.

After counties were initially excluded from the RMLF in September 2023, the petitioners sought and were granted conservatory orders through Nairobi Constitutional Petition No. E456 of 2023.

Hoping for a resolution, the National Assembly later offered an out-of-court settlement, promising to allocate Sh10.5 billion to counties through the County Governments Additional Allocations Bill, 2024.

On this basis, the petitioners withdrew their case on February 8, 2024. The promise was, however, short-lived.

The court also directed the Kenya Roads Board, the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury, and Parliament to take all necessary steps, both legislative and budgetary, to include counties as beneficiaries of the RMLF in current and future financial years.

In addition, the court ordered amendments to both the Kenya Roads Act and the Kenya Roads Board Act within 12 months to align them with the Constitution.

It further mandated a reclassification of all roads in Kenya, distinguishing national trunk roads from those under the jurisdiction of county governments.

The ruling stated: “An order be issued directing the Cabinet Secretary of Roads and Transport and the Attorney General to take appropriate measures within 12 months to reclassify all roads in Kenya to accord with the constitutionally permissible framework”.

2024 mining regulations declared unconstitutional

The High Court declared the Mining Regulations 2024 unconstitutional, null and void, dealing a blow to the Ministry of Mining, Blue Economy, and Maritime Affairs.

In a judgment delivered on September 10, 2025, Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled that the regulations, which included amendments across several areas of the mining framework, were passed in violation of constitutional principles on transparency and public participation.

The decision followed a petition filed by the Kenya Chamber of Mines, which moved to court challenging the respective regulations.

"A declaration be and is hereby issued that the mining collection and management ammendment regulations 2024, the Mining License and Permit Ammendment regulations 2024, the mining dealing with minerals ammendment regulations 2024, Mining Mind Support Services ammendment regulations 2024 and Mining Gemstones Identification and Value Addition Fees Ammendment Regulations 2024, collectively the mining regulations 2024 are hereby declared unconstitutional, unlawful in violation of articles 10 and 118 of the constitution," the judgment read.

Justice Mwamuye observed that the regulations were unlawful and could not stand, declaring them invalid and unenforceable.

The judge further ordered that the Mining Regulations 2024 be declared null and void, and issued an order of certiorari quashing them in their entirety.

"A declaration is hereby issued that Mining Regulations 2024 are null and void and therefore invalid and unenforceable in their entirety. An order of certiorari is hereby issued to bring into this court and to quash in entirety the Mining Regulations 2024,” the judge further ordered.

Ordinarily, the court observed, quashing regulations would open the door to refund claims for fees and levies collected under the invalidated rules.

However, Justice Mwamuye declined to order refunds in this case, citing the wider public interest.

"In the present case, I decline to issue such an order as I am persuaded that directing a refund of levies so collected would not be in the public interest as it would occasion a paralysis of the respondents' operations and also impose a substantial financial burden on the government," he noted.

The quashed regulations had sought to amend fee structures for licensing, permitting, mineral dealing, and value addition processes in the mining sector.

They included provisions increasing application fees, levies, and charges across different categories of mining activities, changes that had drawn criticism from some industry players.

Succession law and gender equality

On June 19, 2025, the High Court in Nairobi struck down a section of the Law of Succession Act that discriminated against widowers.

Section 29(c) had required a husband to prove that he depended on his late wife before inheriting her estate.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that the provision, which required a husband to prove he was dependent on his deceased wife in order to qualify as a beneficiary of her estate, violated the Constitution’s guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

The section is now void. The judge also directed Parliament to amend the law to remove the inequality.

This ruling strengthens equality in succession law by putting men and women on the same footing when inheritance disputes arise.