Ogombo v Land Registrar, Vihiga County & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7116 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application for leave to institute judicial review proceedings is res judicata in light of the ruling in Vihiga ELC Judicial Review No. E001 of 2025
- 2.Whether the court is functus officio in respect of issues already decided in the earlier application
Key legal issues
#Res judicata and functus officio
The application is res judicata because the same issues (whether mandamus could issue to enforce a 2005 court order in view of sections 4(4) and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act) were already determined in the ruling of 18th September 2025 in Judicial Review No. E001 of 2025 striking out the substantive Notice of Motion.
The court found it common ground that an identical Chamber Summons between the same parties had been allowed, a substantive motion filed, and a ruling delivered striking it out after a preliminary objection. The court in the earlier ruling had rendered itself on the mandamus and limitation issues. It therefore could not revisit them; the Applicant's remedy was to pursue the filed Notice of Appeal, not to file fresh proceedings raising the same issues.
Legal principles established
#- A court that has already determined issues raised in a prior application is functus officio and a party raising the same issues invites the court to sit on appeal over its own decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application is struck out
- 2.Costs to the 2nd Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23 of the Constitution, Order 53 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 9 of the Law Reforms Act Cap 26 Laws of Kenya
Relief refused
#Leave to institute judicial review proceedings seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to transfer land parcel number South Maragoli/Logovo/849, and leave to operate as stay
The application is res judicata and improperly before court; the court is functus officio on the same issues decided in Judicial Review No. E001 of 2025
Costs
Costs to the 2nd Respondent.
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.
The court finds that the application is res judicata and is improperly before court.
The application is struck out. Costs to the 2nd Respondent.
The court therefore is functus oficio in so far as the issues raised in the earlier application are concerned.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment dates the order sought to be enforced inconsistently - '19th July, 2005' in the grounds and paragraph 18 versus '17th July, 2005' in the 2nd Respondent's preliminary objection
The judgment inconsistently dates the start of the limitation period - '7th July, 2015' in the grounds versus '7th July, 2025' in the Applicant's submissions
The second appeal is cited as 'Kakamega Civil Appeal 52 of 2005', a year earlier than the first appeal 'Kakamega ELCA 47 of 2017', which appears internally inconsistent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogombo v Land Registrar, Vihiga County & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 24th September, 2025 (Vihiga ELC Judicial Review). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7116/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.