Njoroge v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court retains the jurisdiction to substantively re-adjudicate the parties' disputed financial accounts after having already delivered its final judgment, ruling and subsequent orders
Key legal issues
#Whether the court, having delivered final judgment, may substantively re-adjudicate the parties' disputed accounts
No - the court is functus officio as to merits-based determination of the accounts, but retains supervisory jurisdiction to refer the accounts to the Deputy Registrar for taking, examination and reconciliation
The doctrine of functus officio rests on finality of litigation: after final judgment and decree the court cannot re-engage with the merits. However, proceedings incidental to or consequential upon the final decision remain within its jurisdiction. The judgment expressly directed the Defendant to furnish true and accurate statements of account, so taking of accounts is a consequential step giving effect to an existing order, not a new cause of action. Order 21 Rule 17 permits special directions and referral of accounts; the Deputy Registrar may ascertain outstanding balances to found execution.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court has rendered a final decision it cannot ordinarily reopen the merits of the dispute, but it retains jurisdiction over proceedings incidental to or consequential upon the final decision, including taking and settling of accounts.
- Under Order 21 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules the court retains a limited supervisory jurisdiction over the process of taking accounts even after judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The parties shall comply with the existing Judgment and decree and take all necessary steps towards bringing the matter to finality
- 2.The disputed accounts shall be referred to the Deputy Registrar for taking, examination and reconciliation in accordance with the directions contained in the ruling and Order 21 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over the suit; supervisory jurisdiction over taking of accounts under Order 21 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Substantive re-adjudication of the parties' disputed financial accounts by the Judge
The court is functus officio as to merits-based determination of the accounts; taking of accounts is a consequential step, not a reopening of the dispute
Costs
No costs order made in the ruling
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 upshot is that this court is functus officio when it comes to the determination of the parties' statement of accounts.
The disputed accounts shall therefore be referred to the Deputy Registrar for taking, examination and reconciliation in accordance with the directions contained herein and Order 21 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Where the Court is merely supervising compliance with its decree, settling the decree, issuing appropriate execution orders or dealing with an incidental matter necessary to give effect to its judgment, the Court is not necessarily functus officio.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 558 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5650/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.