Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtDismissedPetition (Application) E032 (E036), 35(E038) & 36(E039) of 2022 (Consolidated)

Fanikiwa Limited & 3 others v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 17 others

Supreme Court of Kenya
11 December 2025
Martha Karambu KoomeM.K. KoomePhilomena Mbete MwiluP.M. MwiluMohammed Khadhar IbrahimM.K. IbrahimSmokin Charles WanjalaS.C. WanjalaNjoki Susanna NdunguNjoki NdunguIsaac LenaolaI. LenaolaWilliam OukoW. Ouko
2,016 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Supreme Court dismisses second review attempt, says litigation must end.

What this practically means

#

The Supreme Court has dismissed a second attempt by the Sirikwa Squatters Group to review a 2023 judgment in a land dispute. The Court ruled that it cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions and that review is only allowed in rare cases like fraud or a null judgment. The group failed to prove any such exceptional circumstances. The Court also said it cannot interpret its own judgments after they are issued, and that repeatedly filing applications is an abuse of the legal process. The group must pay the respondents' costs.

Executive summary

#
This ruling concerns a second application for review of the Supreme Court's judgment of December 15, 2023, which had set aside the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeal in their entirety in a land dispute. The applicant, Sirikwa Squatters Group, sought review and/or interpretation of that judgment, arguing it only affected the trial court's judgment of February 9, 2017, and not the review ruling of November 10, 2017. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to establish any of the exceptional circumstances required for review under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and the principles in Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello. The court noted that this was a second review application on the same matter, making it barred by res judicata and the principle of finality. The court further held that it became functus officio upon issuing its judgment and cannot interpret its decisions to litigants, relying on its holding in Cogno Ventures Limited. The court emphasized that there must be an end to litigation and that the applicant had been filing application after application, which it described as 'outrightly mischievous.' The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant has established a basis for the review of this court’s decision?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant established a basis for review of the Supreme Court's judgment of December 15, 2023

Holding

The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the exceptional circumstances required for review, such as fraud, nullity, mistaken consent, or reliance on a repealed or concealed law.

Reasoning

The court applied the principles from Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello, which limit review to exceptional circumstances. The applicant did not show that the judgment was obtained by fraud or deceit, was a nullity, or that the court was misled. The application was essentially an attempt to enforce the court's orders as the applicant understood them, not a proper review. The court also noted that this was a second review application on the same matter, making it barred by res judicata and the principle of finality.

p. 6
02

Whether the court could interpret its judgment of December 15, 2023

Holding

The court became functus officio upon issuing its judgment and cannot interpret its decisions to litigants.

Reasoning

The court relied on its holding in Cogno Ventures Limited & 4 others v Bia Tosha Distributors Limited, where it stated that it is not for the Supreme Court to interpret its decisions to different litigants. Once a judgment is issued, the court's role in that matter ends, and it cannot provide further clarification or interpretation.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The Supreme Court cannot review its own decisions except in rare cases like fraud or nullity.
  • Once a judgment is issued, the Supreme Court becomes functus officio and cannot interpret it for litigants.
  • The principle of finality requires that litigation on a settled matter must come to an end.
  • A second review application on the same matter is barred by res judicata.
  • Repeatedly filing applications after a final judgment can be deemed an abuse of process.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated August 11, 2025 be and is hereby dismissed
  2. 2.The applicant/1st respondent shall bear the costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Martha Karambu Koome
M.K. KoomeCJ
Currently serving
majority

Wrote the judgment

Philomena Mbete Mwilu
P.M. MwiluDCJ
Currently serving
majority
Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim
majority
Smokin Charles Wanjala
S.C. WanjalaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Njoki Susanna Ndungu
Njoki NdunguSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Isaac Lenaola
I. LenaolaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
William Ouko
W. OukoSCJ
Currently serving
majority
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
ELC Petition 4 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 21, 21A and 23 of the Supreme Court Act and rule 32 of the Supreme Court’s Rules

Relief refused

#

Review of the judgment of December 15, 2023

The application fell short of the exceptional circumstances required for review

p. 6

Interpretation of the implication of the judgment of December 15, 2023 on the trial court’s review ruling of November 10, 2017

The court became functus officio upon issuance of the judgment

p. 7

Costs

The applicant/1st respondent shall bear the costs of this application.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

as a general rule, the Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions, or to review its decisions, save to correct obvious errors apparent on the face of the decision
p. 6 Scope of Supreme Court's review jurisdiction
With the issuance of the judgment, the court became functus officio. We hold the same position in this matter.
p. 7 Functus officio doctrine
The principle of finality must be applied in appropriate instances so as to avoid courts relitigating on settled matters
p. 3 Principle of finality in litigation

Key timeline

#
2017-02-09
Trial court issues judgment in land dispute.
2017-11-10
Trial court issues review ruling.
2023-12-15
Supreme Court sets aside trial court and Court of Appeal decisions.
2025-08-11
Sirikwa Squatters Group files second review application.
2025
Supreme Court dismisses the application with costs.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

Limit review applications to exceptional grounds

When advising clients on Supreme Court review, stress that only fraud, nullity, mistaken consent, or reliance on a repealed/concealed law will succeed. A second review on the same matter is barred by res judicata. Do not file interpretation requests after judgment—the Court is functus officio. Instead, advise clients to comply with the judgment as written.

For businesses

Final Supreme Court rulings are binding

If your business is involved in litigation that reaches the Supreme Court, expect the ruling to be final. The Court will not reopen or clarify its decisions. Plan your legal strategy accordingly—once the Court issues a judgment, you must comply. Repeated applications can be penalized with costs and deemed abusive.

For individuals

You cannot keep challenging a final court order

If you lose a case at the Supreme Court, you generally cannot ask the same Court to review or explain its decision. The law only allows review in very rare situations like fraud. Filing multiple applications after a final judgment wastes time and money, and you may be ordered to pay the other side's legal costs.

Frequently asked questions

#
Can I ask the Supreme Court to review its own judgment in Kenya?+

Only in very rare cases, such as if the judgment was obtained by fraud, is a nullity, or relied on a law that was repealed or hidden. The Court will not review just because you disagree with the decision.

What does functus officio mean in Kenyan law?+

It means the Supreme Court's job is finished once it issues a judgment. The Court cannot later interpret or explain its decision to litigants. You must follow the judgment as written.

Can I file a second review application in the Supreme Court in Kenya?+

No. A second review on the same matter is barred by res judicata, meaning the issue is already settled. The Court will dismiss it and may order you to pay costs.

What happens if I keep filing applications after a Supreme Court judgment in Kenya?+

The Court may dismiss them as an abuse of process and order you to pay the other side's legal costs. The principle of finality requires that litigation must end.

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Fanikiwa Limited & 3 others v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 17 others", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (Application) E032 (E036), 35(E038) & 36(E039) of 2022 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2025/79/eng@2025-12-11

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.