High Court Upholds Kshs. 500,000 Award in Data Privacy Dispute: The case of Moja Expressway Company v Ndung’u (Civil Appeal E673 of 2024) [2025]

In a significant decision on data protection and employee rights, the High Court has upheld a Kshs. 500,000 award against Moja Expressway Company for unlawfully using a former employee’s image in promotional material after the end of his employment.

The case, Moja Expressway Company v Ndung’u (Civil Appeal E673 of 2024) [2025], arose from a dispute between the company and its former employee, Ndung’u, over the use of his image on the company’s social media platforms.

Background of the Dispute

During his employment, Ndung’u had consented to the company’s use of his image for promotional purposes. However, after resigning in November 2022, the employment relationship came to an end.

Nearly a year later, in October 2023, the company published a promotional post featuring Ndung’u’s image. He subsequently lodged a complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC), alleging unlawful use of his personal data.

The company maintained that there was no breach, arguing that Ndung’u had previously given oral consent and had never formally withdrawn it. The ODPC disagreed, finding that a data breach had occurred and awarding Ndung’u Kshs. 500,000 in compensation.

The Appeal

Moja Expressway Company challenged the ODPC’s decision before the High Court, arguing that the damages awarded were not justified and had not been proven.

The Court was asked to determine two key issues:

• Whether valid consent had been obtained for the continued use of the image; and
• Whether the ODPC’s award of compensation was warranted.

Court’s Findings

On the issue of consent, the Court held that consent to use personal data is not indefinite or automatic. It observed that the continued use of Ndung’u’s image after termination of employment amounted to commercial exploitation.

While such use during employment may be compensated through salary or commission, the Court found that once the employment relationship ended, any further commercial use required fresh consent or a separate contractual arrangement. The company’s failure to obtain renewed consent rendered the use unlawful.

Regarding compensation, the Court acknowledged that emotional distress and related harm are difficult to quantify. Relying on previous judicial decisions, including MWK & Another v Attorney General & 3 Others and Kamande v Nation Media Group, the Court affirmed that reasonable compensation may be awarded even where harm cannot be precisely measured.

The High Court ultimately found no fault in the ODPC’s decision and upheld the award of Kshs. 500,000 to Ndung’u.

Key Takeaway for the Public

The ruling reinforces a critical principle under Kenya’s data protection framework: consent is not static or permanent. Where the circumstances under which personal data was originally provided change — such as the termination of employment — fresh consent may be required.

The decision serves as a caution to employers and organisations that personal data, including images, cannot be commercially exploited beyond the scope of the original consent. Failure to comply with data protection obligations may result in legal and financial consequences.

 

Emerging Jurisprudence on Matrimonial Property and the Law of Succession in Kenya

By Ogeka, Advocate

Introduction

The intersection of matrimonial property rights and succession law has become one of the most contested areas in Kenyan jurisprudence. Since the enactment of the MatrimonialProperty Act 2013 – Empirical review of a decade of decided cases and the continued application of the Law of Succession Act (LSA), courts have grappled with reconciling equitable distribution during marriage with the devolution of property upon death. This has significant implications for spouses, families, and estate planning, particularly in a legal landscape shaped by constitutional equality and evolving societal norms.

1. Matrimonial Property under Kenyan Law

The Matrimonial Property Act, 2013 (MPA) defines matrimonial property as property acquired during the subsistence of a marriage and subject to joint ownership based on contribution — monetary and non-monetary. Kenyan courts have reiterated that:

• A property acquired during marriage, even if registered in one spouse’s name, is prima facie held in trust for both spouses.
• Contribution — including domestic work, childcare and management of family assets — is a key determinant of entitlement upon division.

Court decisions emphasise that mere registration in the name of one spouse does not negate the other’s interest if there is demonstrable contribution. Jurisprudence is evolving on the scope of contribution and the evidentiary threshold required, mirroring global trends towards recognising non-financial contributions in family law.

2. The Succession Law Interface

The Law of Succession Act governs devolution of property upon death. Historically, succession law and matrimonial property law operated in silos: the former regulating inheritance and estate administration, the latter focusing on property rights between spouses during life or at divorce. However, emerging case law now confronts their convergence. 

In FEO v ACO (Estate of the Late BPO) [2024] KEHC 14889 (KLR), the High Court held that the concept of matrimonial property, strictly speaking, does not organically belong in succession causes. The court reasoned that matrimonial property rights arise during a marriage and, upon death, transform into rights enforceable only through succession — not as an independent cause of action. Critically, it underscored that a claim to matrimonial property ought ideally to be determined before death to avoid prejudice to other heirs.

Similarly, in In re CKN & ENM (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 332 (KLR), the High Court clarified that once a spouse dies before a matrimonial claim is substantiated, any rights they may have had under the MPA fall to the deceased’s estate — and must be pursued through succession proceedings. 

3. Procedural and Jurisdictional Challenges

Recent decisions highlight procedural complexities:

• In LWM v Kioko & 2 others [2024] KEHC 8270 (KLR), a matrimonial property claim filed post-death without timely substitution of parties was dismissed for abatement, illustrating the importance of procedure in preserving substantive rights.
• Cases such as KW v Estate of KW [2023] KEHC 23180 (KLR) emphasise that courts may redirect spouses to probate causes rather than entertain matrimonial actions once a spouse has died, reaffirming that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over estate matters.

These decisions underscore that practitioners must strategically plan litigation — ensuring matrimonial property issues are addressed while both spouses are alive or immediately upon death within proper succession proceedings.

4. Constitutional Dimensions and Emerging Issues

A notable emerging trend pertains to gender equality in succession rights. In Dennis Kivuti Mungai vs Attorney General (2025), the High Court declared Section 29(c) of the Law of Succession Act unconstitutional for imposing unequal dependency requirements on widowers compared to widows. The court held that this discriminatory burden violated constitutional equality provisions. This decision signals an increasing judicial willingness to align succession statutes with constitutional norms of gender equality.

5. Theoretical and Policy Considerations

The apparent tension between matrimonial property rights and succession rights calls for doctrinal and legislative harmonisation. Academic commentary highlights inconsistencies between the Matrimonial Property Act and the Law of Succession Act, particularly in polygamous families where spousal contributions are not adequately reflected in intestate distribution provisions. Without reform, the current framework may fail to protect the contributions of spouses — especially women — in both marital and post-death contexts.

Conclusion

Jurisprudence on matrimonial property and succession in Kenya is at a critical inflection point. Courts are increasingly clarifying that:

• Matrimonial property rights do not automatically transfer into succession causes but must be validated during life or efficiently transitioned into estate claims.
• Procedural compliance is crucial to preserving rights after death.
• Constitutional principles, particularly gender equality, now inform succession jurisprudence.

For legal practitioners and clients alike, the evolving case law underscores the necessity of early action, careful litigation planning, and estate planning that anticipates these intersecting issues. As Kenyan courts further refine these doctrines, stakeholders must remain attentive to both statutory developments and judicial interpretations to ensure equitable outcomes.

This publication is intended for informational purposes for members of the legal sector and public and does not constitute legal advice.

CAN MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS CHARGE AND AUCTION PROPERTY IN KENYA? - An in-depth legal analysis under Kenyan law

Intro

Microfinance institutions in Kenya may take security over property — including land and, where applicable, movable assets — to secure loans. However, the legitimacy of those security interests and enforcement actions turns on compliance with specific statutory frameworks and judicial pronouncements.

This article examines:

1. When and how MFIs can take property as security;
2. Legal requirements for enforcing security against default;
3. Borrower protections under statute and case law;
4. Jurisdictional and regulatory constraints; and
5. Practical compliance guidance.

1. Legal Foundations for Charging Property in Kenya

1.1 Charges Defined and Recognised

Under the Land Act (the Land Act), a “charge” over land is defined as an interest in land securing the repayment of money or performance of an obligation. It includes both formal and informal charges.

• Formal charge: Requires execution of a written instrument and registration as an encumbrance at the Lands Registry.
• Informal charge: A written and witnessed undertaking accepted by the chargor with clear intention to create security; enforceable only with the leave of court unless otherwise specified by law.

For movable assets (e.g., machinery, livestock), the Movable Property Security Rights Act governs creation and registration of security rights, enhancing clarity and enforcement for non-land collateral.

2. Can Microfinance Institutions Legally Take Property as Security?

2.1 General Authority to Take Security

There is no express prohibition in Kenyan law preventing MFIs from taking security over land or movable property provided:

• The chargor voluntarily offers the property as collateral;
• The instrument complies with statutory form and registration requirements; and
• The creditor adheres to regulatory obligations, where applicable.

In Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd v John & Another the High Court highlighted the statutory requirements for completing a charge — including registration and compliance with Land Act formalities — as conditions precedent to enforceability.

2.2 Licensing and Mortgage Business

While MFIs can take security, lenders not licensed to conduct mortgage finance business may face regulatory challenges. Recent commentary suggests a tension between the regulatory requirements under the Banking Act — which restricts unlicensed entities from conducting mortgage finance business — and usual practice in the microfinance sector. 

This has resulted in litigation challenging the legality of certain charges, though courts have not uniformly disallowed all unlicensed charging practices so long as statutory requirements are met. The licensing question remains an emerging area of regulatory jurisprudence.

3. Enforcement: When and How Property Can Be Sold

The power to sell charged property is not automatic upon default. It must follow strict statutory procedures in the Land Act.

3.1 Statutory Notices – Sections 90 and 96 of the Land Act

Under Section 90 of the Land Act, a chargee must serve a written notice to the chargor upon default, informing them:

• of the nature and extent of the default;
• the amount payable (if a monetary default) and a minimum 3-month period to remedy same;
• consequences of continued default; and
• the right to seek court relief.

Only after expiry of the Section 90 notice may the chargee seek remedies, including sale.

Section 96 of the Land Act requires a separate notice to sell after the default period has elapsed, and the sale may not proceed until at least 40 days after service of this notice.

These timelines are mandatory preconditions to valid enforcement: failure to serve them in proper form renders any attempted sale unlawful. As the High Court explained in East Africa Ventor Co. Ltd v Agricultural Finance Co-op Ltd & another, statutory notices are essential and cannot be bypassed.

3.2 Duty of Care and Valuation — Section 97

Once the power of sale is triggered, Section 97 of the Land Act imposes a duty of care on the chargee to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable and to procure a forced sale valuation before sale.

In Omingo v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Limited & Another, the High Court applied Section 97 and held that undervaluation or irregular sale may breach the duty of care, potentially rendering the sale susceptible to challenge.

4. Jurisdiction and Procedural Considerations

4.1 Appropriate Forum

Disputes over validity of charges and enforcement proceedings lie within the High Court rather than the Environment and Land Court Act, as enforcement is a financial and contractual matter, not a land use question. In Cabro Mombasa Limited v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Limited, the court struck out an injunction application, clarifying that such disputes do not fall under Environment and Land Court jurisdiction.

5. Borrower Protections Under Kenyan Law

5.1 Spousal and Third-Party Consent

A charge over matrimonial property generally requires written spousal consent, failing which the charge may be voidable. The Land Registration Act and the Matrimonial Property Act give effect to this requirement.

5.2 Equity of Redemption

Even after default, a borrower retains the equity of redemption — the right to redeem property by paying outstanding debt before sale is concluded. The courts enforce this principle as part of constitutional property rights under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya.

5.3 Injunctive Relief for Procedural Irregularities

Borrowers can seek interim or permanent injunctions where enforcement processes — such as statutory notice— are defective. In Edward Kangethe Kabinga & 2 others v Kenya Women Microfinance Bank PLC, the High Court granted injunction pending proper notice service.

6. Risks and Compliance Hazards

6.1 Failure to Serve Mandatory Notices

Courts have repeatedly held that non-compliance with Sections 90 and 96 invalidates enforcement steps. Mere advertisement without proper notice will not cure the defect.

6.2 Duty of Care Violations

Selling property far below market value may constitute a breach of the duty of care under Section 97, exposing the chargee to orders setting aside the sale.

6.3 Informal Charges Without Court Approval

Where a charge is informal, statutory enforcement must be preceded by court leave under Section 79(7) of the Land Act.

7. Practical Takeaways

For Borrowers

• Insist on proof of proper statutory notice (Sections 90 & 96).
• Confirm title and spousal or third-party consents.
• Seek timely legal intervention if statutory preconditions are absent.

For MFIs

• Register all formal charges correctly at the Lands Registry and, where applicable, at the Registrar of Security Rights for movables.
• Serve statutory notices in full compliance with legislative timelines.
• Conduct updated forced sale valuations within prescribed periods.
• Document compliance rigorously to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

Yes — microfinance institutions in Kenya may charge property and enforce it through auction sale, but only if they:

1. Comply with the Land Act’s statutory notice regime;
2. Respect valuation and duty of care requirements;
3. Adhere to jurisdictional and procedural safeguards; and
4. Ensure charges are validly created and registered.

Non-compliance attracts judicial sanctions, including injunctions and setting aside of sales, reinforcing that enforcement is rooted in due process and statutory fidelity.

This publication is intended for informational purposes for members of the legal and financial sector and does not constitute legal advice.

Who Inherits When There Is No Will? Understanding Intestate Succession in Kenya

When a person dies, their property does not automatically pass to family members. The transfer of assets and liabilities is governed by law through a process known as succession. In Kenya, succession is regulated by the Law of Succession Act and may take place either through a will or, where no valid will exists, through intestate succession.

Intestate succession applies where a person dies without a will, where a will is declared invalid by a court, or where a will does not cover all the deceased’s property. In such cases, the law determines who is entitled to inherit and how the estate is managed.

Priority in inheritance is first given to the surviving spouse and children. Where the deceased had no children, inheritance passes to parents, then siblings, and other blood relatives in a defined order. If no relatives can be traced, the estate ultimately devolves to the Government of Kenya.

In polygamous families, the estate is shared among the different houses based on the number of children in each house, with each surviving spouse counted as an additional unit. Distribution is therefore proportional and not necessarily equal.

Before any property can be shared, beneficiaries must apply to court for a Grant of Letters of Administration. This grant gives legal authority to manage the estate. Any person who sells, transfers, or interferes with a deceased person’s property without this grant commits the offence of intermeddling, which is punishable by law.

To apply for the grant, applicants must provide a death certificate, identification documents, and a letter from the area Chief listing all beneficiaries and their relationship to the deceased. Once filed in court, the application is published in the Kenya Gazette for 30 days to allow objections from the public or omitted beneficiaries.

If no objection is raised, the court issues a Grant of Letters of Administration for six months. During this period, administrators identify and secure the assets but cannot distribute them. Distribution can only occur after the grant is confirmed by the court, after which administrators must complete the process and account for the estate.

While the intestate succession process may take time, it exists to protect families, prevent fraud, and ensure fairness. Kenyans are encouraged to understand this process and, where possible, make wills to spare their loved ones unnecessary stress and disputes.

Crucial Decisions Every Conveyancing Practitioner Must Know

The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have fundamentally altered the conveyancing landscape in Kenya. The era of reliance on registration alone is over. Root of title scrutiny is now the heart of every transaction.
Here are the 5 landmark cases redefining the practice:
⚖️ 1. Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa [2023] KESC 30
Registration is not a shield. An unlawful foundation vitiates the entire chain, regardless of subsequent bona fide transfers.
⚖️ 2. Torino Enterprises Ltd v Attorney General [2023] KESC 79
An allotment letter—lapsed or not—confers no transferable title. Conveyancers must insist on a registered grant.
⚖️ 3. Sehmi v Tarabana Company Ltd [2025] KESC 21
No innocent purchaser protection where public land was illegally allocated. No legal estate ever existed to pass.
⚖️ 4. Mas Construction Ltd v Sheikh [2025] KECA 349
Expired leasehold land cannot be reallocated. The Commissioner of Lands lacked jurisdiction. Verify the State's capacity at the time of allocation.
⚖️ 5. Teleposta Pension Scheme v Intercountries Exporters Ltd [2024] KECA 870
An irregular allocation yields nothing. No valid interest exists to transfer or charge. The title is void ab initio.
📘 The Bottom Line:
Conveyancing is no longer a checklist exercise. It is a forensic, sequential inquiry into the legality of the root of title.

Legal Advisory: What to Do If You Lose a Title Deed in Kenya

A title deed is the primary proof of land ownership in Kenya, and its loss should be treated as a serious legal matter. The replacement process is governed by the Land Registration Act, 2012, and is designed to protect owners from fraud and duplication.

The first step after discovering a loss is to report the matter to the police and obtain a police abstract. This is followed by an official land search at the relevant Land Registry to confirm ownership and check for encumbrances.

The registered proprietor must then swear a statutory declaration explaining how the title was lost and confirming that it has not been sold, charged, or otherwise disposed of. An application for replacement is made to the Land Registrar using the prescribed form, supported by the necessary documents.

To safeguard public interest, the Registrar publishes a notice in the Kenya Gazette and a national newspaper, inviting objections for a minimum of 60 days. If no valid objection is raised, a replacement title is issued and the land register updated.

Property owners are advised to register a caution immediately upon loss to prevent fraudulent dealings and to seek legal guidance where land is of high value or subject to dispute. If the original title is later recovered, it must be surrendered to the Lands Registry.

While the process may take several months, strict compliance with the law ensures the protection of property rights and the integrity of Kenya’s land registration system.

Review of the provisions of sections 70(2), 75 and 76) of the Land Act

 

Based on the Land Act (No. 6 of 2012) of Kenya, specifically within Part VI: Leases (Remedies and Relief), Sections 75 and 76 govern the process by which a lessor (landlord) can forfeit a lease and the relief available to the lessee (tenant) against that forfeiture. 

Here is a breakdown of the sections requested:

1. Section 75: Notice before Forfeiture 

This section acts as a procedural safeguard for the lessee. A lessor cannot automatically evict a lessee or forfeit a lease for breach of covenant (including non-payment of rent) without following this process. 

• Notice Requirement: The lessor must serve a notice on the lessee specifying the particular breach (e.g., unpaid rent or broken covenant).
• Remedy Period: The notice must require the lessee to remedy the breach within a reasonable time.
• Court Action: If the lessee fails to remedy the breach within the specified time, the lessor may then commence an action in court for forfeiture. 

2. Section 76: Relief against Forfeiture

This section gives the Court discretionary power to prevent the harsh application of forfeiture, guided by principles of equity. 

• Court Discretion: In an action for forfeiture, the court may grant relief to the lessee on such terms as it deems just.
• Equitable Principles: The court will consider the conduct of both parties, the nature of the breach, and whether the breach has been remedied.
• Effect: If relief is granted, the lease continues as if the breach had never occurred. 

3. Contextual Notes on Related Sections

• Section 73 (Lessor's right of forfeiture): Establishes the right to forfeit if rent is unpaid for twelve months or if a covenant is breached.
• Section 74 (Effect of forfeiture on subleases): Provides that forfeiture of a head lease does not automatically destroy a sub-lease; the court can protect sub-lessees.
• Section 70(2) (Land Registration Regulations): While not in the main Land Act 2012, Regulation 70(2) of the Land Registration (General) Regulations 2017 requires that an application for registration of a charge must be supported by a land rent clearance certificate. 

Summary of Process:

1. Breach: Lessee fails to pay rent/covenant.
2. Section 75: Lessor serves a notice specifying the breach.
3. Action: If not remedied, Lessor sues for forfeiture.
4. Section 76: Court may grant relief (e.g., time to pay) to the lessee to avoid losing the lease.