Ragi & 3 others v Bosibori & 3 others (Land Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2021 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court dismissed a plaintiff's bid to pause an eviction ruling, confirming courts will not reward parties who ignore hearing dates.
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 court has jurisdiction to arrest (pause) the delivery of its own ruling
- 2.Whether the court was functus officio to the extent of re-opening proceedings on the 4th Defendant's application dated 3rd November 2025
- 3.Whether the 1st Plaintiff's application is merited
Key legal issues
#Inherent power to arrest a ruling
The court has inherent jurisdiction to pause delivery of its own ruling or judgment to consider a relevant application by an affected party
The court held that 'arresting' a ruling means pausing its delivery pending a certain outcome. Drawing on Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed., Vol. 37, Para 14), the judge reasoned that inherent jurisdiction is the reserve of powers the court draws upon to regulate its proceedings, prevent abuse of process, do justice between the parties and secure a fair trial. The ex parte arrest of the ruling scheduled for 5th March 2026 was therefore within jurisdiction.
Functus officio
The court was not functus officio; it had not yet delivered its ruling on the 4th Defendant's application
The 4th Defendant argued the court could not re-open its application of 3rd November 2025 having conclusively heard it ex parte. Relying on Raila Odinga v IEBC and Jersey Evening Post Ltd v A. Thani, the court held that functus officio applies only once all duties in a case are performed and the judgment or order perfected. Since the ruling was still pending, the doctrine did not apply.
Whether the 1st Plaintiff was denied an opportunity to be heard
The application was not merited; the 1st Plaintiff was aware of the 4th Defendant's application and squandered his opportunity to respond
The court record showed that on 10th December 2025 the 1st Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Mongeri holding brief for Mr. Manani when the application was first slated for hearing, and the date of 29th January 2026 was taken in the presence of his advocate. He neither appeared nor filed a response on 29th January 2026. Citing Union Insurance Co. of Kenya Ltd v Ranzan Abdul Dhanji as applied in Alphonse Kondi Riaga, the court held there was no reasonable explanation for not utilizing the opportunity to be heard.
Legal principles established
#- Arresting a judgment or ruling simply means pausing its delivery, and the court has inherent jurisdiction to pause delivery of its own ruling to consider a relevant application by an affected party
- A court is functus officio only after it has performed all its duties in a particular case, i.e. when its judgment or order has been perfected
- The law does not require that a party be heard in every litigation; a party must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and once given and not utilized, the party can only be heard on why it was not utilized
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Plaintiff's application is dismissed with costs to the 4th Defendant
- 2.The court to conclude its ruling on the 4th Defendant's application dated 3rd November 2025 for delivery on 23rd April 2026 at 2:30 pm, virtually
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, Land Act and Civil Procedure Act invoked in the preliminary objection; the court grounded the ruling on its inherent jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Leave/opportunity for the 1st Plaintiff to prosecute a preliminary objection against the 4th Defendant's application dated 2nd March 2026 (with the ruling arrested)
The 1st Plaintiff was aware of the 4th Defendant's application, was represented when it was first slated for hearing, and squandered the opportunity to respond without a reasonable explanation
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the 4th Defendant
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.
Ofi course the court has the inherent jurisdiction to pause the delivery of its ruling or judgement to allow it consider any relevant application by a party who is likely to be afiected by the said judgement or ruling as this court did in this instance or for any other reason, dependent on the circumstances of each particular case.
A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. Proceedings are only fully concluded and the court functus, when its judgement or order has been perfected.
The law is not that a party must be heard in every litigation. The law is that parties must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and once that opportunity is given and is not utilized, then the only point on which the party not utilizing the opportunity can be heard is why he did not utilize it.
The court therefore finds and holds that the 1st Defendant's application is not merited. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the 4th Defendant.
That said the court will proceed to conclude its ruling on the 4th Defendant's application dated 3rd November 2025 for delivery on 23rd April 2026 at 2:30 pm, virtually.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is duplicated/inconsistent (paragraphs 20-22 appear twice) and the 4th Defendant's application is variously dated 3rd November 2023, 3rd November 2025 and 30th November 2025
The court's dismissal refers to 'the 1st Defendant's application' where the applicant is the 1st Plaintiff
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ragi & 3 others v Bosibori & 3 others (Land Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2021 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application dated within the pending suit; 4th Defendant's application dated 3rd November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2021/eng@2026-04-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.