Nancy Wanjiru Wangai v National Social Security Fund & 4 others [2021] KEELC 4408 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to reopen a 2016 judgment because the applicant waited four and a half years — once a court gives a final decision, it generally cannot revisit it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment
The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the review application; it is functus officio having delivered final judgment on 29th January 2016.
The court relied on Telkom Kenya Ltd v John Ochanda and Raila Odinga v IEBC on the functus officio doctrine, which embodies the principle of finality - a decision-maker may exercise adjudicative powers only once in relation to the same matter. The applicant's purported new evidence (an affidavit by Samson Masaba Munikah disowning the transfer of lease) sought improperly to introduce the Estate of Alfred Josse Nakaya as a new party. There was no application for correction of any error apparent on the face of the record, and no appeal withdrawal was demonstrated.
Whether the application for review was made without unreasonable delay
The application was brought after an inordinate, unexplained delay of about four and a half years since judgment.
Judgment was delivered on 29th January 2016 and the application dated 17th June 2020, filed 18th June 2020 - approximately four and a half years later - with no explanation for the delay. Order 45 rule 1 requires an application for review to be made without unreasonable delay. In the intervening period the applicant had filed a notice of appeal and pursued stay of execution, confirming he had elected the appellate route.
Whether the preliminary objection was merited
The preliminary objection was upheld on the ground of functus officio.
Having found the court functus officio and the application delay-barred and not meeting Order 45 conditions, the court upheld the plaintiff's preliminary objection. The applicant's non-compliance with the stay conditions of 26th September 2019 and his pending appeal (notice of withdrawal filed after this application) further undermined the application.
Legal principles established
#- The functus officio doctrine bars a court that has rendered a final decision from reopening the matter, and the right of review must be strictly established within Order 45 conditions, including application without unreasonable delay.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection was upheld - the court found it is functus officio and cannot entertain the application.
- 2.The notice of motion dated 17th June 2020 seeking review of the judgment delivered on 29th January 2016 was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 45 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nancy Wanjiru Wangai v National Social Security Fund & 4 others [2021] KEELC 4408 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4408/eng@2021-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.