Omwando v Kenya Industrial Estates Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 783 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 423 (KLR)

4. The record of the court indicates that indeed judgment was delivered in this matter on 22nd March 2022 by my predecessor, Justice M.N. Gicheru. The Learned Judge dismissed the Plaintifi’s suit in its entirety with costs. 5. The Applicant asserts that the Plaintifi moved the Court of Appeal after delivery of the judgement, for an order of stay of execution vide the Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil application No. E436 of 2022 but the same was dismissed on 30th November 2022. A copy of the ruling is attached as an annexed as an annexure in the supporting afidavit of the Applicant in support of the application. Issues for determination 6. Considering that a judgment has already been rendered in this matter, the glaring issue for determination is whether the court has the power to entertain the application before it. Analysis and determination. 7. The doctrine of functus oficio dictates that once a court has rendered its final decision, it ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter save for specific exceptions. 8. In the case of Raila Odinga v IEBC & 3 others Petition No 5 of 2013, the Supreme Court of Kenya cited with approval a paragraph from, ‘The origins of the Functus Oficio Doctrine with Specific Reference to its Application in Administrative Law’ by ‘Daniel Malan Pretorius’ as follows:-……. “ The functus oficio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by means of which the law gives expression to the principle of finality. According to this doctrine, a person who is vested with adjudicative or decision-making powers may, as a general rule, exercise those powers only once in relation to the same matter. The (principle) is that once such a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal to superior body or functionary) final and conclusive. Such a decision cannot be reviewed or varied by the decision maker.” 9. The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Jersey Evening Post Limited v A. Thani (2002) JLR 542, at page 550 where the court stated that: “ A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it prevent a judicial change of mind even when a decision has been communicated to the parties. Proceedings are only fully concluded, and the court functus, when its judgment or order has been perfected. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision, any challenge to its ruling on adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available.” 10. The Supreme Court of Kenya nonetheless noted that the doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors, under the ship rule. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision, any challenge to its ruling on adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available. 11. In the case of Telkom Kenya Ltd v John Ochanda (2014) eKLR, the Court of Appeal too while discussing the principle of functus oficio stated as follows: “ Funtus Oficio is an enduring principle of law that prevents the re-opening of a matter before a court that rendered the final decision thereon. The doctrine is not to be understood to bar https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/423/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 3

any engagement by a court with a case that it has already decided or pronounced itself on. What it does bar, is a merit based decisional re-engagement with the case once final judgment has been entered and a decree thereon issued.” 12. The court pointed out the various exceptions to the principle of functus oficio, notably: Application for stay (of execution)Application to correct the decree (under the slip rule)Application for accounts;Application for execution including garnishee proceedings;Application for review, andApplications under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act. 13. Upon a careful perusal of the application, the judgment of the court and the pleadings in this file, the application is not an application to execute orders arising out of the judgment of the court; it does not fall under any of the exceptions outlined above. 14. The judgment of the court simply dismissed the Plaintifi’s suit and no other orders were made. 15. Further, a careful look at the copy of the caution attached to the application shows that it was actually lodged prior to the filing of the suit. It was prohibiting transactions on the suit property pending hearing and determination of a suit ‘to be filed’. It was not a restriction pursuant to any court order in this matters. It is not an issue that was determined by the court in the judgment. 16. This court therefore lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The court is functus oficio; it ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter the moment it delivered its judgement dismissing the Plaintifi’s suit. 17. The Applicant must move in accordance with the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act. If he is to seek the assistance of the court, he can only do so in a fresh matter/application; not in this matter. 18. This file is closed. The court has nothing more to do in it. The 2nd Defendant’s Applicant is struck out but with no orders as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Mr. Odongo h/b for Mr. Makau for the 2nd Defendant/Applicant N/A by the Plaintifi, the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants Court Assistant: MPoye M.D. MWANGI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/423/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 3