Omar Abdalla Jelani & 5 others v Attorney General & 4 others
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Joinder of the Applicant after conclusion of the suit
The Applicant was a stranger to the proceedings, never applied to be joined, and cannot be joined in a matter already concluded
The Petition was a representative suit by six named Petitioners. The Consent Order of 8th December 2014 required the Petitioners' Advocate to join project-affected persons within 14 days, but the Applicant was never joined and never applied to be joined. Joining him now, after the matter was concluded in 2015, would convolute the issues and give a second bite at a determined matter.
Functus officio
The court became functus officio upon the ruling of 8th October 2019 marking the matter as compromised; the Applicant did not bring himself within the slip rule exceptions
The ruling of 8th October 2019 conclusively determined the dispute subject to taxation of costs. The Applicant failed to demonstrate a slip in drawing up the ruling or an error in expressing the court's manifest intention. Reopening the matter would require new material to pass through cross-examination and trial procedure, which is impermissible at this stage.
Threshold for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1
No error apparent on the face of the record, no new evidence that could not with due diligence have been produced earlier, and review cannot be used to reopen a concluded matter
Applying the parameters set by Mativo J in Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya, the court held that review is confined to material available at the initial decision, mere discovery of new evidence is insufficient, and the material presented was suited to a fresh suit rather than review. Granting the orders sought would change the substratum of the litigation and require the suit to start de novo.
Legal principles established
#- A party can only be joined to a suit during its pendency, not after it has been concluded
- Once a court has rendered a final decision it becomes functus officio and cannot review or alter its decision, save for the slip rule exceptions
- Review is not a vehicle for reopening a concluded matter; the grounds in Order 45 Rule 1 are exhaustive
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th November 2022 is dismissed
- 2.The Applicant to pay costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent review jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, invoked by application dated 8th November 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omar Abdalla Jelani & 5 others v Attorney General & 4 others", Case Analysis (2023). Constitutional Petition 10 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/17695/eng@2023-05-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.