Sonko v Clerk, County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court cannot review its own decisions unless there is fraud, deceit, or a clear error.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed Mike Sonko’s request to review its earlier judgment. The Court said it can only review its own decisions in very rare cases, like fraud or a clear mistake. Sonko argued the judgment was obtained by fraud and that a judge was biased, but the Court found these claims did not meet the strict legal test. The Court also said the request for the Chief Justice to step aside had already been decided and could not be raised again.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court of 15th July 2022 should be reviewed and/or set aside on grounds of fraud, deceit, or nullity.
- 2.Whether the Hon. Chief Justice Martha Koome should recuse herself from the matter.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court can review its own judgment under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 2020.
The Court can review its decisions only in exceptional circumstances, such as fraud, deceit, nullity, mistaken belief of consent, or reliance on a repealed or concealed statutory provision. The applicant failed to demonstrate any such circumstances.
The Court restated the principles from Fredrick Otieno Outa v. Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 others, noting that review is limited to correcting obvious errors or exceptional circumstances. The applicant argued the judgment was obtained by fraud or deceit and was a nullity due to alleged bias of the High Court judge, but the Court found these grounds did not relate to its own decision. Additionally, since the Court had already found it lacked jurisdiction in the main appeal, a review application could not confer jurisdiction.
Whether the application for recusal of the Chief Justice was res judicata.
The recusal application was res judicata, having been previously raised and determined in a ruling of 14th July 2022.
The Court noted that the applicant had previously made an oral application for recusal, which was considered and determined in an ex tempore ruling on 14th July 2022, with detailed reasons issued on 18th July 2022. The current application sought to re-litigate the same issue, which is impermissible.
Legal principles established
#- The Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions, except to correct obvious errors on the face of the ruling.
- Review of a Supreme Court decision is only allowed in exceptional cases like fraud, deceit, nullity, or reliance on a repealed law.
- A review application cannot give the Supreme Court jurisdiction if it already found it lacked jurisdiction in the main case.
- An issue that has already been decided by the Court (res judicata) cannot be raised again in a new application.
- Allegations of bias against a lower court judge do not justify reviewing the Supreme Court’s own decision.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 18th July, 2022 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The Applicant shall bear costs of this application in terms of paragraph 12.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 163(1) and (4), 159(2)(d) and (e) of the Constitution; Sections 3 and 21(2) of the Supreme Court Act; Rule 3 and Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules 2020
Relief refused
#Review and/or set aside the Judgment of 15th July 2022
The application fell short of the exceptional circumstances required for review; the Court had found its jurisdiction was not properly invoked, and a review application cannot confer jurisdiction.
Recusal of the Hon. Chief Justice Martha Koome
The question of recusal was res judicata, having been previously raised and finally determined in a ruling rendered on 14th July 2022.
Costs
The applicant shall bear the costs of the 1st, 2nd, 10th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 11th respondents who have participated in this 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.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions, or to review its decisions, save to correct obvious errors apparent on the face of the decision.
the Court having found as a main reason that its jurisdiction was not properly invoked, a review application cannot confer on it jurisdiction
this question is res judicata, having previously been raised and finally determined in a ruling rendered on 14th July, 2022 culminating in detailed reasons on 18th July, 2022
The Notice of Motion application dated 18th July, 2022 is hereby dismissed.
The Applicant shall bear costs of this application in terms of paragraph 12.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Limited grounds for Supreme Court review
When advising clients on Supreme Court appeals, emphasize that review is not a second appeal. Grounds are strictly limited to fraud, deceit, nullity, or reliance on a repealed statute. Allegations about lower court bias or misconduct will not reopen a Supreme Court decision. Ensure your application clearly ties the exceptional circumstance to the Supreme Court’s own judgment, not to earlier proceedings.
Finality of Supreme Court rulings
Businesses involved in litigation should understand that once the Supreme Court rules, the decision is final. Attempts to reopen the case based on claims of fraud or bias are very unlikely to succeed unless you have concrete evidence of wrongdoing directly affecting the Supreme Court’s decision. This ruling reinforces that the Court will not entertain repeated challenges to the same issue.
You cannot relitigate decided issues
If you have already asked a court to decide something—like whether a judge should step aside—you cannot bring the same request again later. The Supreme Court called this an abuse of process. If you believe a judgment was obtained unfairly, you must act quickly and provide clear proof of fraud or a mistake in the court’s own ruling, not just in earlier stages of the case.
Frequently asked questions
#Can the Supreme Court of Kenya review its own judgment?+
Yes, but only in very rare cases. The Court can correct obvious errors on the face of the decision, or review if there is fraud, deceit, nullity, or reliance on a repealed law. You cannot use a review to re-argue your case or challenge a lower court’s decision.
What happened in the Mike Sonko Supreme Court review case in Kenya?+
Mike Sonko asked the Supreme Court to review its earlier judgment and to have the Chief Justice step aside. The Court dismissed both requests. It said the grounds for review were not met, and the recusal issue had already been decided. Sonko was ordered to pay the legal costs of the respondents.
What does res judicata mean in Kenyan law?+
Res judicata means a matter that has already been decided by a court cannot be raised again by the same parties. In this case, Sonko had already asked the Chief Justice to recuse herself, and the Court ruled on it. He could not bring the same request again.
Can I challenge a Supreme Court decision in Kenya if I think a judge was biased?+
You can raise bias, but you must do it at the right time and with evidence. If you wait until after the judgment, the Court may say the issue was already decided or that it does not relate to the Supreme Court’s own decision. The Court will not review its judgment based on allegations about a lower court judge.
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.
- Muthoni v Kiambaa Kawaida Co. Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4543 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4543 (KLR)14 Jul 2026applied
- Kiilu & Kiilu (Holders of a Registered General Power of Attorney on Behalf of Rhoda S. Kiilu v Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Limited; John Muthomi & Co. Advocates (Respondent) (Environment and Land Case 34 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 624 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 624 (KLR)5 Feb 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sonko v Clerk, County Assembly of Nairobi City & 11 others", Case Analysis (2022). Petition 11 (E008) of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2022/38/eng@2022-08-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.