Abdirahman Abukar Hassan & another (Applicants) v Anti-Counterfeit Authority & 3 others
The bottom line
#Courts in Kenya can review their own decisions, but you must stick strictly to the original facts and arguments when seeking a change.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Court is functus officio after delivering a merit judgment in a constitutional petition
The Court has jurisdiction to review its own decision; the functus officio objection was declined
The Mutunga Rules do not expressly provide for review of a merit judgment, but the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Article 165(3) and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act bridges that gap. Shutting out a party would violate the rights of access to justice and fair hearing under Articles 48 and 50(1).
Whether the findings and orders on continued custody of the goods constituted an error apparent on the face of the record
No error apparent; the findings were clear and unambiguous and any alteration would require an analytical shift outside the scope of review
The Court had rationally found the detention intertwined with pending trademark disputes and made custody orders under section 27 of the Anti-Counterfeit Act. The orders did not contradict the injunctive orders in HCCOMM No. E604 of 2023, in which the ACA was not a party and which directed the 1st Petitioner to seal goods in its own possession.
Whether storage charges could be introduced by way of review
No; the order was not sought in the initial Petition
Parties are bound by their pleadings in the adversarial system, as per the Supreme Court in CMM v Standard Group. New relief cannot be introduced at review stage.
Whether the locus standi finding could be set aside on review
No; that is a ground of appeal, not review
The Applicants were dissatisfied with the Court's finding on the complainant's locus standi; such dissatisfaction must be pursued on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A court with inherent jurisdiction under Article 165(3) and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act may review its own merit judgment notwithstanding that the Mutunga Rules do not expressly provide for review
- A party dissatisfied with a court's findings must appeal rather than seek review
Court orders
#- 1.The Court's jurisdiction to review its own decision upheld; the 1st Respondent's functus officio challenge declined
- 2.The application dated 27th April 2026 dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(3) of the Constitution; section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Rules 3 and 25 of the Mutunga Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdirahman Abukar Hassan & another (Applicants) v Anti-Counterfeit Authority & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 27th April 2026 (arising from Petition dated 23rd September 2025). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.