Tullow Oil Plc & 3 others v PS, Ministry of Energy & 15 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court cannot set aside its own rulings unless a specific rule allows it.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court of Kenya dismissed an application asking it to cancel its earlier ruling. The Court said the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to it, and its own rules do not give it power to set aside its orders. The applicant also failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation. The Court stressed that legal cases must eventually end.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Do we have the jurisdiction to grant the orders sought by the Applicant?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to recall, set aside, rescind, nullify and void its own Ruling of 8th May 2019.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to grant such orders as there is no express provision in the Supreme Court Rules, 2011 (or the 2020 Rules) for setting aside, rescinding or annulling its own orders. The Civil Procedure Act does not apply to Supreme Court proceedings.
The Applicant sought to invoke the Civil Procedure Act, but the Court held that Act does not apply to Supreme Court proceedings. The Supreme Court Rules, 2011 do not contain a specific rule for the prayers sought. The Court noted that Rule 23 only provides for the form of interlocutory applications, and Rules 24 and 25 provide for specific applications like certification and joinder, but none for setting aside orders. The Court concluded that without express provision, it lacks jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.
Whether the Applicant proved fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation of material facts by the Respondents to warrant setting aside the Ruling.
The Applicant failed to provide any credible evidence of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation, and the allegations were based on conjecture and speculation.
The Applicant made serious allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against Tullow Oil PLC and its counsel, but the Court found that not one piece of credible evidence, save conjecture and speculation, was produced to prove these allegations. The Court noted that the Applicant instead dwelt on irrelevant contested issues of fact and failed to address the core reason his Notice of Appeal was struck out: failure to file the appeal within the prescribed time.
Legal principles established
#- The Civil Procedure Act does not apply to proceedings before the Supreme Court.
- There is no express provision in the Supreme Court Rules allowing the Court to set aside its own orders.
- Without such express provision, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to grant those orders.
- Allegations of fraud must be supported by credible evidence, not conjecture or speculation.
- Litigation must come to an end; parties cannot endlessly challenge final rulings.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2020 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.There shall be no order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap.21, Section 3 of the Supreme Court Act as well as Articles 1,2, 3(1), 10, 19-23, 27, 40, 47, 48, 50, 156(6), 159(2) (d), 166(2)(c), 259 and 260 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Recall, set aside, rescind, nullify and void ab initio the Ruling of 8th May 2019
The Court found it had no jurisdiction to grant the orders, and the application was scandalous and devoid of merit.
Costs
There shall be no order 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.
it is basic that the Civil Procedure Act, Cap.21 does not apply to proceedings before this Court and therefore setting aside of orders under that Act is an alien procedure to this Court.
while therefore there is no express provision in our Rules granting us the jurisdiction to set aside, rescind or annul our orders
The Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2020 is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
the Application is so scandalous and devoid of any merit that to grant it would only placate a dissatisfied litigant who has misunderstood the real reason his Notice of Appeal was struck out.
the Applicant must be told, without reservation, that he has hit the end of the road. Litigation, however painful, must come to an end. He is flogging a dead horse and he ought to busy himself with other ventures of use to him.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#No Jurisdiction to Set Aside Supreme Court Orders
Lawyers cannot rely on the Civil Procedure Act to set aside Supreme Court rulings. The Court has no rule allowing it to rescind its own orders. If you need to challenge a Supreme Court decision, use only the specific review or appeal provisions in the Supreme Court Rules. Any allegation of fraud must be backed by concrete evidence, not speculation.
Finality of Supreme Court Decisions
Businesses in Supreme Court litigation should expect rulings to be final. The Court will not reopen a case just because a party makes new allegations. Ensure you meet all deadlines and present your best case the first time. Once a decision is made, your only option is a limited review under the Supreme Court Rules, not a general setting aside.
Limited Options After Supreme Court Ruling
If you lose in the Supreme Court, you cannot ask the Court to cancel its own ruling unless a specific rule authorises it. Simply claiming fraud without proof will not work. Your best course is to comply with the decision or, if allowed, seek a review under the Supreme Court Rules. Missing deadlines can cost you the case entirely.
Frequently asked questions
#Can the Supreme Court of Kenya set aside its own ruling?+
No, unless a specific rule in the Supreme Court Rules allows it. The Court does not apply the Civil Procedure Act, so you cannot use that law to ask for a ruling to be set aside. This case confirms that the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.
What happens if I miss a deadline in the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
Missing a deadline can lead to your appeal being struck out, as happened here. The Supreme Court will not easily reinstate your case. You must file within the prescribed time or seek an extension if allowed. There is no general power to set aside a strike-out order.
How to prove fraud in a Kenyan Supreme Court case?+
You must provide credible evidence, not just speculation or conjecture. In this case, the applicant made serious allegations but produced no proof. The Court said it was not enough. You need documents, witnesses, or other solid proof that fraud actually occurred.
Does the Civil Procedure Act apply to the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
No. The Supreme Court has its own rules and the Civil Procedure Act does not govern its proceedings. This means you cannot use procedures like setting aside orders under that Act. All applications must be based on the Supreme Court Rules, 2011 (or 2020).
Later judgments citing this (8)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ndung'u (Suing as an Administrator of the Estate of the Late Benson Ndung’u Theuri alias Ndung’u Theuri Mwema) v Mwaniki & 55 others (Environment and Land Case 42 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7078 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7078 (KLR)15 Oct 2025applied
- Mwai v Ndegwa (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1025 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1025 (KLR)5 Mar 2025applied
- Ndiritu & 100 others v Ahmed & 3 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 98 of 2010) [2024] KEELC 7239 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 7239 (KLR)29 Oct 2024applied
- Njoroge v Karuthia (Environment & Land Case 1331 of 2007) [2022] KEELC 3520 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 3520 (KLR)21 Jul 2022applied
- Mukunya v Mukunya & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E238 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2859 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 2859 (KLR)7 Jul 2022applied
- Trustees v Salat & another (Environment & Land Case E046 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 132 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 132 (KLR)26 May 2022applied
- George Gatembo (suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Muguna (Deceased) v Elijah Mutegi M’rwito & 10 others [2021] KEELC 3157 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 3157 (KLR)26 May 2021applied
- Evangeline Karugwata Gikono v Joyce Nkuene Cypriano & another [2021] KEELC 3336 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 3336 (KLR)12 May 2021applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tullow Oil Plc & 3 others v PS, Ministry of Energy & 15 others", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application 1 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2020/49/eng@2020-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.