Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court cannot reopen a final judgment, even to extend a deadline.
What this practically means
#After the Supreme Court delivers a final judgment, it loses the power to change or extend any timelines in that judgment. This is called being functus officio. In this case, a party asked for more time to comply with a demolition order because of illness. The Court said it could not grant that request because its job was already finished. The application was dismissed with no costs.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant application having become functus officio upon delivery of its judgment on April 11, 2025
- 2.Whether the 1st respondent should be granted an extension of the six-month demolition period for structures on LR No 209/2759/9 to nine months
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to extend a timeline for compliance with its own final judgment after the judgment has been delivered.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to extend the timeline because it is functus officio after delivering its final judgment.
The court held that upon delivery of its judgment on April 11, 2025, it conclusively determined all issues in the matter. The doctrine of functus officio prevents the court from reviewing or altering its decision once proceedings are finally concluded. The court cited its decisions in Odinga v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others and Shollei v Judicial Service Commission & another to reaffirm that it cannot entertain applications for enlargement of time or variation of directions after final judgment. The 1st respondent's ill health, while unfortunate, does not confer jurisdiction on a functus officio court.
Legal principles established
#- Once the Supreme Court delivers a final judgment, it becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the case.
- The doctrine of functus officio prevents the Court from varying its own directions after a final decision.
- A party's ill health does not give the Court jurisdiction to extend a deadline after final judgment.
- No order for costs is made when an application is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
- The Supreme Court will not entertain applications for enlargement of time after it has conclusively determined the matter.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated September 29, 2025 and filed on October 2, 2025 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.There shall be no orders as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Supreme Court Act
Relief refused
#Extension of the six-month demolition period for structures on LR No 209/2759/9 to nine months
This court lacks jurisdiction to extend the timeline granted to the 1st respondent for compliance with its judgment delivered on April 11, 2025, as it is functus officio.
Additional time for the 1st respondent to remove goods and materials from the suit property within the same nine-month period
The court is functus officio and cannot vary its final orders.
Costs
There shall be no orders as to costs.
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.
This court conclusively determined the issues in this matter vide its judgment delivered on April 11, 2025 and is therefore, functus officio.
once the Supreme Court has conclusively determined a matter, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain any subsequent application seeking enlargement of time or variation of the directions issued
The notice of motion dated September 29, 2025 and filed on October 2, 2025 is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Functus officio bars post-judgment timeline changes
After final judgment, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to extend compliance deadlines. If a client faces a tight timeline, seek relief before the judgment is delivered, not after. Once the court is functus officio, even health emergencies do not reopen the case. Advise clients to plan for compliance immediately.
Final court orders are absolute – plan ahead
If your business is subject to a Supreme Court order (e.g., demolition, eviction, payment), you cannot get an extension after the judgment. All compliance must be completed within the set time. Relying on future court leniency is risky. Engage legal counsel early to negotiate timelines before the judgment is final.
Court deadlines cannot be extended after judgment
Even if you become seriously ill, the Supreme Court will not extend a deadline once its final judgment is issued. You must comply within the original timeline or seek alternative solutions before the judgment. This case shows that personal hardship does not give the court power to change its final decision. Act early.
Frequently asked questions
#Can the Supreme Court of Kenya extend a deadline after its final judgment?+
No. Once the Supreme Court delivers a final judgment, it becomes functus officio – meaning its job is done. It cannot extend any deadlines or vary its own directions, even if the party has a valid reason like illness.
What does functus officio mean in Kenyan law?+
Functus officio is a Latin term meaning 'having performed its office'. In Kenyan courts, it means that once a court has made a final decision on a matter, it cannot reopen or change that decision. The court has no further jurisdiction.
Can illness excuse a party from complying with a Supreme Court order in Kenya?+
No, not after the judgment is final. In this case, the 1st respondent had renal failure, but the Court held that illness does not give it jurisdiction to extend the demolition period. The only remedy is to comply within the original timeline or seek relief before the judgment.
What happens if I cannot meet a Supreme Court deadline in Kenya?+
You must still comply within the time set in the judgment. The Court will not extend the deadline afterwards. The best approach is to notify the Court and the other parties before the judgment is final, or to negotiate a consent order with agreed timelines.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mohamed & 5 others v Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 48 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4360 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4360 (KLR)8 Jul 2026applied
- Wanjala & 9 others v Keter & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition 2 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2738 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2738 (KLR)6 May 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others", Case Analysis (2026). Petition (Application) E033 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/15/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.