Adolwa v Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya (Environment and Land Appeal E074 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3747 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court dismissed a tenant's attempt to have its own judgment changed, confirming that a judge cannot reopen a decided case — only the Court of Appeal can.
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 applicant established any of the statutory grounds for review of the judgment delivered on 27th November, 2025
- 2.Whether the court, having rendered itself on the merits of the appeal, had jurisdiction to revisit the judgment on its merits
Key legal issues
#Whether the review application met the statutory grounds under Order 45 Rule 1
No ground for review was cited or proved; the application was in substance an attempt to re-litigate the merits of the judgment
The court restated the grounds in Order 45 Rule 1 (1) Civil Procedure Rules - discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, brought without unreasonable delay. It found that the grounds supporting the application merely re-argued the merits of the Tribunal reference and the appeal judgment, none of which constitutes a ground for review.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to interrogate the merits of its own judgment
The court was functus officio after delivering judgment on the merits; the proper forum is the Court of Appeal
Having disposed of the appeal on its merits, the court's jurisdiction was spent. The application was characterised as inviting the court to interrogate the propriety of the judgment dated 27th November, 2025, which is a matter for a higher court, not for review. The application was therefore misconceived and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court renders itself on the merits of an appeal by judgment, it becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the merits; the remedy lies on appeal to a higher court
- Grounds for review are discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, and the application must be brought without unreasonable delay
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th January 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs are awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal (Landlord and Tenant Tribunal)
- Reference (unspecified)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; review governed by section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Review of the judgment dated 27th November, 2025
No ground for review under section 80 CPA and Order 45 CPR was cited or proved; the court became functus officio after judgment
Correction of alleged errors on the record and in the facts of the judgment
The application in substance sought interrogation of the merits of the judgment, which the court had no jurisdiction to do
Restoration of the appellant's tenancy
Not granted as the application was dismissed as misconceived
Costs
Costs are awarded to the 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.
Having rendered itself on the merits of the appeal vide its judgment, this court became functus officio. To challenge the judgment on its merits, the appellant/applicant can only go to a higher court; the Court of Appeal for redress.
The application dated 8th January 2026 is hereby dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the Respondent.
the grounds upon which an application for review of a judgment/decree or order can be made are: a) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence or b) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or c) any other sufficient reason and d) the application must be brought without unreasonable delay.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistencies in the judgment: the application is described as seeking review of 'the judgment dated 2nd December, 2025' in one limb and 'the judgment dated 2nd December, 2026' in another, while the judgment is elsewhere consistently dated 27th November, 2025
Chronological inconsistency in the applicant's grounds: the Termination Notice is dated 14/03/2024 yet the premises are stated to have been closed on 15/03/2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adolwa v Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya (Environment and Land Appeal E074 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3747 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LA E074/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3747/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.