Kasigau Ranching (DA) Company Ltd v Cabinet Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum & Mining & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4866 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to let a former landowner retrieve valuable property because she waited too long and had already lost the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant was entitled to supervised entry to the suit land to retrieve her movable property
Refused; the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable cause, clean hands, or absence of prejudice
The applicant had adequate time from 2.10.2024 to 5.4.2025 to comply with the judgment and remove her properties but did not. She did not demonstrate when she requested access, nor compliance with compensation and environmental restoration awards. Her prior extension-of-time application was dismissed for inordinate delay. Granting re-entry would effectively rehear the concluded matter. Equity's clean-hands principle disqualifies her.
Whether the court is functus officio
Yes; having delivered judgment on 2.10.2024 the court cannot grant the orders sought
The court relied on the doctrine of functus officio as defined in Black's Law Dictionary and restated in Telkom Kenya Ltd v Ochanda and Jersey Evening Post Ltd v Al Thani (approved in Raila Odinga v IEBC). Having rendered its judgment on 2.10.2024, the court's decision is final, reviewable only for clerical errors under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, and any further proceedings should go to the appellate bench.
Applicability of Article 40 of the Constitution and Section 108(2)(b) of the Land Act
Section 108(2)(b) of the Land Act was inapplicable as the suit land was not subject to compulsory acquisition; Article 40 protection did not assist the applicant
While ownership of the movable properties was undisputed and attracts constitutional protection under Article 40, Section 108(2)(b) of the Land Act, 2012 applies only to entry by the National Land Commission for valuation of land targeted for compulsory acquisition. The suit land belongs to the plaintiff and is not subject to compulsory acquisition, so that provision was of no assistance.
Legal principles established
#- A court is functus officio after rendering judgment and cannot review its own decision except for clerical errors or on appeal
- An applicant for discretionary re-entry orders must show reasonable cause for not removing items during the compliance period and that no hardship or prejudice will be occasioned to the respondent
- He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 26.6.2026 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasigau Ranching (DA) Company Ltd v Cabinet Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum & Mining & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4866 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (4th Defendant/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 26.6.2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4866/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.