Martin Wanderi & 106 others v Engineers Registration Board & 8 others; Egerton University & another (Interested Parties)
The bottom line
#The Supreme Court can review its own rulings if a key law was concealed, as happened in this engineering case.
What this practically means
#The Engineers Registration Board asked the Supreme Court to change a 2018 order forcing it to register everyone as 'Engineers.' The Board found that some people were Engineering Technologists or Technicians, covered by a different law that was never mentioned in the original case. The Supreme Court agreed this was a serious oversight. It changed its order: qualified engineers go to the Engineers Board, while technologists and technicians go to the separate Technologists Board. This shows the Court can fix its decisions when important laws are hidden from it.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the circumstances of the case are so exceptional as to warrant a review of the Judgment of 17th July 2018.
- 2.Whether the Applicant has met the principles for review as set out in Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 Others [2017] eKLR.
- 3.Whether the principles in Outa should be expanded to include 'apparent errors of law and of fact, inability to implement a Judgment without breaching law and public interest' as further grounds for review.
- 4.Whether the Application was filed inordinately and should be dismissed for that reason.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment under Rule 20(4) of the Supreme Court Rules.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review its own decisions beyond the Slip Rule under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, but it may exercise inherent powers to review in exceptional circumstances as defined in Fredrick Otieno Outa.
The Court reiterated its holding in Fredrick Otieno Outa that Rule 20(4) cannot confer jurisdiction to review beyond the Slip Rule because neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court Act explicitly confers such power. However, the Court has inherent power to review in exceptional circumstances limited to four specific grounds: fraud, nullity, mistaken belief of consent, or judgment based on a repealed or concealed statutory provision.
Whether the non-disclosure of the Engineering Technology Act, No. 23 of 2016 constitutes an exceptional circumstance warranting review under the Outa principles.
Yes, the non-disclosure of the Engineering Technology Act, which created a separate registration regime for engineering technologists and technicians, was an exceptional circumstance under principle (iv) of Outa because the judgment was rendered without addressing this statutory provision.
The Court found that the Engineering Technology Act was not brought to its attention during the original hearing. This Act created a distinct registration framework for engineering technologists and technicians, separate from graduate engineers under the Engineers Registration Act. The Court's original order for registration of all petitioners as 'Engineers' under the Engineers Registration Act did not address this dichotomy. The Court held that allowing registration of technologists and technicians as engineers by judicial fiat would not be in the interests of justice and would require the Board to flout the law.
Whether the application for review was filed inordinately and should be dismissed for delay.
The delay was understandable and excusable because the Applicant took time to implement the judgment and only sought review after encountering difficulties.
The Court noted that the Applicant took steps to implement the judgment, including issuing certificates and inviting applications, before realizing that some petitioners held Bachelor of Industrial Technology degrees rather than engineering degrees. These implementation actions took time, making the delay excusable.
Legal principles established
#- The Supreme Court has inherent power to review its own judgments in exceptional circumstances, such as fraud or a concealed law.
- Non-disclosure of a relevant statute that would have materially affected the outcome is an exceptional circumstance for review.
- A court cannot issue an order that compels a party to violate an existing Act of Parliament.
- The time taken to genuinely implement a court order can excuse a delay in filing a review application.
- The categories of exceptional circumstances for review are limited but the Court retains discretion to act in the interests of justice.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17th December 2019 is hereby allowed.
- 2.Order No.(b)(3) in the Judgment dated 17th July 2018 is hereby reviewed and shall now read as follows: 'An order of Mandamus do hereby issue directing the Engineers Registration Board to register such Petitioners and 2nd Interested Parties, as are qualified as Engineers, under the Engineers Act forthwith. Such Petitioners and 2nd Interested Parties as are Engineering Technologists and Technicians shall be registered as Technologists and Technicians by the Engineering Technologist Registration Board and the Engineers Registration Board shall transmit this order to that Board for implementation forthwith. In default, the said Petitioners and Interested Parties shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for any appropriate orders for enforcement thereof.'
- 3.Such Petitioners and Interested Parties as are Engineering Technologists and Technicians shall not be the beneficiaries of Orders Nos.(b) 1, 2, and 4 as well as (c) of the said Judgment.
- 4.Each Party shall bear its own costs of the present Application.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Petition No. 19 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 20(4) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2011 and Article 159(2) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Expansion of the principles in Fredrick Otieno Outa to include 'apparent errors of law and of fact, inability to implement a Judgment without breaching law and public interest' as further grounds for review.
The Court found that the existing principle (iv) in Outa applied to the Motion and saw no reason to depart from or create additional principles.
Costs
Each Party shall bear its own costs of the present Application.
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 Notice of Motion dated 17th December 2019 is hereby allowed.
Consequently, Order No.(b)(3) in our Judgment dated 17th July 2018 is hereby reviewed and shall now read as follows: 'An order of Mandamus do hereby issue directing the Engineers Registration Board to register such Petitioners and 2nd Interested Parties, as are qualified as Engineers, under the Engineers Act forthwith. Such Petitioners and 2nd Interested Parties as are Engineering Technologists and Technicians shall be registered as Technologists and Technicians by the Engineering Technologist Registration Board and the Engineers Registration Board shall transmit this order to that Board for implementation forthwith.'
In addition, such Petitioners and Interested Parties as are Engineering Technologists and Technicians shall not be the beneficiaries of Orders Nos.(b) 1, 2, and 4 as well as (c) of our said Judgment.
Each Party shall bear its own costs of the present Application.
We hold that as a general rule, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decisions, nor to review its decisions, other than in the manner already stated in paragraph (90) above. However, in exercise of its inherent powers, this Court may, upon application by a party, or on its own motion, review, any of its Judgments, Ruling or Orders, in exceptional circumstances, so as to meet the ends of justice.
The existence of the Engineering Technology Act No.23 of 2016 was not brought to the attention of this Court at the time it rendered its Judgment and how its enactment affected implementation of Section 11 of the Engineers Registration Act Cap.530 which was the operative law at all material times. In our view, that non-disclosure is now an important consideration on whether to grant a review or not.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#New Grounds for Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court confirmed that failing to disclose a relevant statute is an exceptional circumstance under the Outa principles, warranting a review of its own judgment. Lawyers must now conduct exhaustive statutory searches before the Supreme Court, as non-disclosure of a material law can later unravel a final judgment. This ruling provides a specific, actionable pathway for review applications where a key statute was overlooked.
Clarity on Professional Registration
Businesses hiring engineering professionals must now verify the specific registration body for their employees. The ruling clearly separates 'Engineers' (registered by the Engineers Registration Board) from 'Engineering Technologists and Technicians' (registered by the Engineering Technologist Registration Board). Relying on a single registration for all roles could expose a business to regulatory risk. Ensure your HR and compliance teams understand this legal distinction.
Know Your Correct Registration Board
If you are an engineering professional, your qualification determines which board registers you. Graduate Engineers must register with the Engineers Registration Board. Engineering Technologists and Technicians must register with the Engineering Technologist Registration Board. This ruling prevents the Engineers Board from being forced to register everyone as an 'Engineer'. Check your degree or diploma to ensure you apply to the correct board for your professional license.
Frequently asked questions
#Can the Supreme Court of Kenya change its own decisions?+
Yes, but only in very rare cases. The Court can review its own rulings if the judgment was obtained by fraud, if the Court lacked the power to hear the case, or if a key law was hidden from it. This case shows that failing to tell the Court about a relevant Act is a valid reason for a review.
What is the difference between an Engineer and an Engineering Technologist in Kenya?+
An Engineer is a university graduate registered under the Engineers Act. An Engineering Technologist or Technician is registered under the separate Engineering Technology Act. This Supreme Court ruling confirmed they must be registered by different boards and cannot be treated as the same profession.
What is the Fredrick Otieno Outa case in Kenya?+
The Outa case is the leading Supreme Court decision that sets the strict rules for when the Court can review its own judgments. It limits reviews to exceptional situations like fraud, nullity, or a judgment based on a hidden or repealed law. The Engineers Registration Board case applied these exact rules.
How long do I have to apply for a review of a Supreme Court judgment in Kenya?+
You must act promptly. However, this ruling shows that the time you spend genuinely trying to obey the original court order can excuse a delay. The Board took time to implement the judgment before realizing it couldn't, and the Court accepted this as a valid reason for the delay.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Okoiti v Portside Freight Terminals Limited & 12 others[2025] KESC 67 (KLR)14 Nov 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Martin Wanderi & 106 others v Engineers Registration Board & 8 others; Egerton University & another (Interested Parties)", Case Analysis (2020). Application 39 of 2019 & Petition 4 of 2016 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2020/44/eng@2020-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.