Commonwealth Landmark Judgments Report | October 2026

The High Court of Kenya has established a significant constitutional boundary regarding the governance of public-private partnerships (PPPs). The ruling clarifies that while private capital is permitted to finance public infrastructure, the executive branch cannot utilize commercial frameworks to circumvent parliamentary oversight of public funds and state liabilities.

This judgment is expected to fundamentally alter the landscape for major infrastructure projects. By requiring legislative approval, the court has ensured that the financial implications and long-term obligations of such deals are subject to public scrutiny, potentially impacting how these projects are negotiated and finalized in the future.

Kenya’s High Court has issued conflicting rulings on whether a former president may legally maintain formal leadership of a political party after leaving office. While one judge upheld restrictions on such roles as a necessary safeguard against undue political dominance, another found the limitation to be an unconstitutional restriction of an individual’s political rights.

The judicial disagreement centers on the leadership of the Jubilee Party by former President Uhuru Kenyatta but carries broader implications for the constitutional boundaries between public office and private citizenship. The eventual resolution of this legal split will define the extent to which retired heads of state can continue to exert formal influence over the country’s political landscape.

The High Court of Kenya has declined to adjudicate a challenge brought by Tata Chemicals Magadi regarding the suspension of its mining operations. The court determined that the matter falls under the specialized jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, effectively leaving the underlying dispute over the legality of the government’s shutdown order unresolved for the time being.

This procedural ruling highlights ongoing complexities regarding judicial jurisdiction in administrative and industrial disputes. As one of Kenya’s most established mineral industries remains in limbo, the case underscores the tension between state administrative power and the legal protections afforded to major commercial enterprises.

A recent procedural ruling from the Kenyan courts has cleared the immediate path for the construction of the KSh 2.2 trillion Dangote refinery in Lamu. While this decision allows the project to move forward in the short term, it does not resolve several substantive legal challenges that continue to loom over the development.

Critical issues regarding land rights, community compensation, and environmental safeguards remain subject to further scrutiny. The ruling suggests that while the project has gained a temporary green light, its long-term stability will depend on how the court eventually addresses these deeper questions of public accountability and regulatory compliance.

Kenya’s High Court has granted permission for a constitutional challenge to proceed against four separate rounds of Senior Counsel appointments. The upcoming legal battle will focus on the underlying legal framework and the process used to confer these prestigious titles, rather than the immediate validity of the titles held by the 97 individuals currently affected.

This case represents a significant test of the transparency and legality of the appointment process within the legal profession. By examining the foundation of how these honors are bestowed, the court will determine whether the current system meets constitutional standards for fairness and administrative regularity.

The High Court of Kenya has revoked the municipal charter for Mairo Inya, ruling that the local authorities failed to facilitate meaningful public participation. The court found that a single public notice followed by a sparsely attended meeting did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for engaging the community in significant administrative changes.

This judgment reinforces the principle that public consultation must be a substantive exercise rather than a mere formality used to legitimize pre-determined outcomes. It serves as a warning to administrative bodies that they must demonstrate how public input has genuinely influenced their decision-making processes to avoid judicial reversal.

A ruling by Nigeria’s Federal High Court in Gombe has nullified the party-primary victory of an incumbent lawmaker, sparking a significant legal debate over the requirements for seeking re-election. The court’s decision centers on the constitutional question of whether an elected representative must resign from their current office before they are eligible to run for another term or seek a fresh mandate.

The case is now heading to the Court of Appeal, where it will be considered alongside broader legal disputes regarding party membership registers and the statutory conditions for candidate nominations. The final outcome will have substantial implications for the political landscape, potentially altering the procedural requirements for all sitting officials seeking to contest future elections ahead of the 2027 cycle.

Nigeria’s Supreme Court has issued a definitive judgment restoring the statutory rules that govern party membership registers and candidate nominations. This ruling significantly strengthens the authority of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to enforce the existing electoral framework as the country prepares for the 2027 general elections.

While the judgment settles a major constitutional dispute regarding the validity of these Electoral Act provisions, it does not resolve all uncertainties. Legal experts note that while the broad rules are now upheld, specific questions regarding how these regulations will be applied to individual candidate nominations and internal party disputes remain to be tested in lower courts. The ruling provides a clearer rulebook for parties but leaves room for further litigation on specific applications.

In a split 2–1 decision, Nigeria’s Court of Appeal has overturned a previous judgment that had effectively cancelled the registration of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC). By restoring the legal effect of an earlier registration order, the court has ensured the party's official status remains intact as the 2027 election cycle approaches.

The ruling brings into sharper focus a complex dispute involving judicial authority, the formal recognition of political parties, and a contested party logo. This decision is a critical development for the NDC’s political viability and highlights the ongoing role of the judiciary in mediating the administrative and symbolic aspects of Nigeria’s multi-party system.

Nigeria’s Court of Appeal has upheld the invalidation of several key provisions within the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020. These provisions previously granted regulators broad powers to intervene in the management of incorporated trustees, a category that includes various non-governmental and religious organisations. The court found that such powers unconstitutionally restricted the rights of these entities.

In a related finding, the court held that a failure to serve a pre-action notice on the National Assembly cannot be used as a technicality to defeat a claim aimed at enforcing fundamental rights. This reinforces the principle that constitutional protections take precedence over statutory procedural requirements, ensuring easier access to justice for those challenging overreaching government regulations and protecting the autonomy of civil society organisations.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the nullification of the All Progressives Congress (APC) senatorial primary for Zamfara North, following evidence of significant irregularities. The court noted a major discrepancy between the number of registered party members and the total votes recorded, which undermined the integrity of the internal election process.

This decision serves as a firm reinforcement of the legal limits of party autonomy in Nigeria. It clarifies that while political parties have the right to manage their internal affairs, the courts will intervene when nomination processes breach the Electoral Act or the party’s own constitution. The ruling underscores the necessity for transparency and mathematical consistency in internal party democracy to ensure the legitimacy of candidates.

South Africa’s Constitutional Court has unanimously invalidated the Public Procurement Act, a major piece of legislation intended to unify the country’s fragmented procurement regulations. The court’s decision was based on procedural failures, specifically finding that Parliament did not provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to influence the legislative process before the Act was passed.

The ruling emphasizes that legislative haste cannot come at the expense of public accountability. By striking down the Act, the court has forced the government back to the drawing board, highlighting that any future attempts to reform the public sector’s procurement framework must strictly adhere to constitutional standards for public engagement.

South Africa’s Constitutional Court has dismissed a legal challenge that sought to remove animal-wellbeing provisions from the nation’s biodiversity legislation. The ruling ensures that animal welfare remains a core component of wildlife management laws, preserving a legal principle that balances conservation with the humane treatment of animals.

Beyond the immediate environmental impact, the judgment is notable for how the court addressed issues of public participation and unreasonable delays in legal challenges. By upholding these provisions, the court has clarified the limits of comparing different legislative challenges and reinforced the procedural standards required to contest established environmental laws.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa has delivered a landmark ruling holding four successive presidential administrations accountable for a 24-year delay in processing a pardon application. The applicants in the case had spent nearly two decades in prison for crimes they maintained they did not commit. While the pardons were eventually granted, the delay was so extensive that one of the applicants passed away before receiving the final decision.

This judgment establishes a critical constitutional distinction regarding executive power. While the President retains the ultimate discretion to grant or deny a pardon, the court clarified that the duty to consider such applications diligently and without delay is a mandatory obligation that cannot be abandoned to administrative failure. The ruling ensures that the exercise of presidential mercy remains subject to the requirements of constitutional accountability.

South Africa’s Constitutional Court has confirmed the invalidity of a Divorce Act provision that previously barred pension interests from being considered for redistribution in specific divorce proceedings. The unanimous ruling is a significant step toward achieving constitutional equality for spouses, particularly those whose non-financial contributions to a marriage may not be reflected in their individual assets or retirement savings.

The judgment does not create an automatic entitlement for every divorcing spouse to receive half of their partner’s pension. Instead, it removes a discriminatory legal barrier, allowing pension interests to be included in the broader assessment of what constitutes a just and equitable redistribution of assets. This ensures a more holistic and fair approach to financial settlements during the dissolution of a marriage.

The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled against the Road Accident Fund (RAF), barring the public entity from deducting medical expenses from claims simply because a claimant’s private medical scheme has already covered those costs. This decision ensures that claimants receive the full benefit of their compensation without the RAF unfairly benefiting from the claimant's private insurance arrangements.

Beyond the immediate financial implications for road accident victims, the ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law. The court emphasized that a public body cannot evade the binding nature of a court order by issuing new internal directives that achieve essentially the same prohibited effect. This serves as a stern reminder to state organs regarding their obligation to respect judicial authority and existing legal precedents.