Kangara v Rock and Pure Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 136 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 7063 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to reopen a closed matrimonial property case, ruling it had no power to act after delivering final judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection based on functus officio and sub judice was merited
The objection raised pure points of law and succeeded; the court had no jurisdiction to entertain injunctive relief after divesting itself of jurisdiction over matrimonial property
The court restated the Mukisa Biscuits test for preliminary objections and found the objection raised pure points of law. It held the dispute was matrimonial in nature, outside ELC jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b), and that having delivered final judgment and transferred the matter to the Family Division, the court was functus officio and could not grant interim protection.
Whether the application dated 17th April 2024 for review of the judgment of 19th March 2024 was merited
It failed; the applicant did not demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter under Section 80 and Order 45
The court set out the grounds for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, noting the discretion must be exercised judiciously. The applicant's complaints - that the court knew of the divorce and awarded costs despite pronouncing lack of jurisdiction - did not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record, and costs remain awardable notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction under Section 27.
Whether the court retained power to award costs despite having pronounced lack of jurisdiction
Yes; under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, lack of jurisdiction to try the suit is no bar to the exercise of the costs discretion
Relying on Section 27(1) and authority that costs follow the event, the court held that costs could still be awarded even after jurisdiction was ousted because the defendants had prosecuted the suit to determination. However, in the eventual disposition the court exercised its discretion not to award costs.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
- Once a court renders final judgment and a decree is issued, it becomes functus officio and cannot engage in merit-based re-engagement with the case
- Where a court lacks jurisdiction it must down its tools and take no further step
- A court retains discretion to award costs even after ousting its jurisdiction over the substantive dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary objection dated 25th July, 2024 be and is hereby found to have merit thus is allowed as the same is upheld
- 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 17th April, 2024 be and is hereby found to have contravened the provision of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, therefore be and hereby dismissed
- 3.The Notice of Motion application dated 24th June, 2024 be and is hereby found to offend the doctrine of functus officio and thus it is hereby dismissed
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kangara v Rock and Pure Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 136 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 7063 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Mombasa ELC Cause 136 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7063/eng@2024-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.