Muga v Engen Kenya Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 14 of 2013 & 92 of 2009 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2046 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court allowed the plaintiff to represent herself but refused to reopen her concluded land case, saying the loan dispute belongs in the High Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Leave to act in person
Leave granted; the prayer was unopposed.
Order 9 Rule 9 requires a court order for a party previously represented to act in person after judgment. It was not disputed the Plaintiff was previously represented by the firm of Njau, Kayai & Co. Advocates, whom she could not trace (confirmed by the Law Society of Kenya). The 1st Defendant did not oppose, so leave was granted.
Functus officio
The Court is functus officio; it cannot reopen the issues of the loan amount or accounts after its 9th May 2018 judgment.
Relying on Odinga v IEBC and Telkom Kenya v John Ochanda, the court held that having delivered final judgment — including an order that the 1st Defendant could exercise its statutory power of sale if the outstanding amount was unpaid — it could not interrogate the exact loan amount outstanding. It further held it lacked jurisdiction over that question, as it is a commercial dispute determinable only by the High Court (Co-operative Bank v Njuguna).
Res judicata and merit of the injunction/account prayers
Not addressed because of the functus officio finding; the remaining prayers were dismissed.
Having found the Court functus officio, the judge held it unnecessary to address res judicata or the merits of the injunction and account prayers, and dismissed them.
Legal principles established
#- The doctrine of functus officio prevents the re-opening of a matter before a Court after it has rendered the final decision.
- Once a Court has determined a suit on merit it becomes functus officio.
- An ELC lacks jurisdiction to determine the amount due on a charge after the property has been charged; that is a commercial dispute for the High Court.
- A change of advocate or a party's decision to act in person after judgment requires an order of the Court under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the Plaintiff to act in person in place of the firm of Njau, Kayai & Co. Advocates.
- 2.The other prayers sought in the Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion application dated 25th July, 2025 (injunction, order to render accounts, costs in the cause) dismissed.
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 50 & 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 3A & 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rule 9, Order 20 Rules 1 & 20, Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muga v Engen Kenya Limited & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 14 of 2013 & 92 of 2009 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2046 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 14 of 2013 (Kericho). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2046/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.