Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 9th April, 2025 (suit case number not stated in the ruling)

Onalo v Omollo & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 8423 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (not expressly named in the ruling; presided over by a Judge at Kisumu)
4 December 2025
EAE. Asati
1,701 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to reconsider interest awarded in a land refund case, ruling that unhappy parties must appeal rather than ask the same judge for a review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling disposes of a Notice of Motion dated 9th April, 2025 by which the 1st and 2nd Defendants sought review of a judgment delivered on 19th September, 2024, in which the plaintiff, Paul Oduol Onalo, was awarded Kshs.2,770,000/- being a refund of the purchase price of land, together with interest from the date the money was paid to the defendants until full refund, plus costs. The Applicants complained that the plaintiff had caused approximately seven years of delay in prosecuting the suit through repeated adjournments and amendments, and argued that awarding interest for that period rewarded the plaintiff's laxity and punished the defendants, who stood to pay approximately Kshs.8,741,816/-. They further submitted that interest ought only to run from the date of judgment since the refund amount was then first determined, and that the plaintiff had use of the land during the relevant period. The plaintiff opposed, contending that the delay was not solely attributable to him, that the proper remedy was appeal rather than review, and that the court had become functus officio. The court framed three issues: whether grounds for review were demonstrated, whether the relief sought was available, and costs. Holding that the application disclosed no discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, and that the grievances raised went to the merits of the judgment and were properly matters of appeal, the court invoked the doctrine of functus officio and declined the application, ordering each party to bear its own costs of the application.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether or not the application has demonstrated grounds for review of the judgement
  2. 2.Whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief sought
  3. 3.Costs

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants demonstrated grounds for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

No; the application merely challenged the merits of the award of interest, disclosing no new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record

Reasoning

The court recited the four grounds for review: discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, any other sufficient reason, and absence of unreasonable delay. It found the application went only to the propriety and merits of the decision to award interest, with no proof of new matter or apparent error.

p. 4
02

Whether the court, post-judgment, could reconsider the award of interest in light of the plaintiff's alleged delay in prosecuting the suit

Holding

No; upon delivery of judgment the court became functus officio and divested of jurisdiction to revisit the merits

Reasoning

The respondents argued the court became functus officio after judgment. The court agreed, holding that questions of whether interest should run from the date of payment or the date of judgment, and whether the plaintiff delayed the suit, go to the merits of the judgment and cannot be reopened by way of review.

Legal principles established

#
  • Upon delivery of judgment, a court becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the merits of its decision through an application for review; dissatisfaction with the decision is a ground for appeal
  • A party challenging the propriety or merits of a decision must appeal rather than seek review where no new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason is shown

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review dated 9th April, 2025 is declined
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application

The bench

#

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

EA
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Review jurisdiction under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

Review of the judgment of 19th September, 2024 on the award of interest on the refundable sum of Kshs.2,770,000.00

No discovery of new matter, no error apparent on the face of the record; the grounds raised are matters for appeal and the court is functus officio

p. 4

Award of damages to the Applicants based on the submissions on record

Application for review declined in its entirety

p. 4

Costs

Each party to bear own costs of the 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.

The grounds of the application, in my view, form valid grounds for challenging the court's decision on appeal.
p. 4Review versus appeal
The doctrine of functus officio divests the court of the jurisdiction to revisit these issues.
p. 4Functus officio after judgment
For the foregoing reason, I find that the Applicant's recourse is in an appeal and not an application for review.
p. 4Proper remedy for aggrieved party
The application is therefore hereby declined. Each party to bear own costs of the application.
p. 4Final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The court trying the matter is not expressly named in the ruling; only the station (Kisumu) and the judge (E. Asati, Judge) appear

minor

The suit's case number is not stated anywhere in the ruling, making the matter difficult to trace

minor

The application seeks damages 'to the Petitioner/Applicant' although the Applicants are defendants and not petitioners, an apparent mis-description

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Onalo v Omollo & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 8423 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 9th April, 2025 (suit case number not stated in the ruling). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8423/eng@2025-12-04

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