https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10385
The Notice of Motion dated 15th January 2026 had already been dismissed for want of attendance by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, so there was no live application before the court and the court was functus officio in respect of that motion. The court therefore marked the motion spent and only restated prior...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 10385 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Dinesh Chandulal Mokha; Respondent: Stephen Wangusi Fedha
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E103 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion / Case Management Directions
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion marked spent; prior directions on the appeal restated; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- ["E Ominde"]
- Legal Topics
- Functus Officio, Dismissal for Want of Attendance, Subsisting Application, Restatement of Directions, Case Management Timelines
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dinesh Chandulal Mokha
Appellant
Stephen Wangusi Fedha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion / Case Management Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Notice of Motion dated 15th January 2026 was still pending for determination
- 2 Whether the court was functus officio in respect of the application after dismissal by a court of concurrent jurisdiction
- 3 What directions should govern the pending appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Notice of Motion dated 15th January 2026 had already been dismissed for want of attendance by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, so there was no live application before the court and the court was functus officio in respect of that motion. The court therefore marked the motion spent and only restated prior directions on the pending appeal.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion marked spent; prior directions on the appeal restated; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Notice of Motion dated 15th January 2026 is marked as spent.
- Directions issued by Honourable Lady Justice Shariff on 27th January 2026 are restated and must be complied with from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA** **CIVIL APPEAL NO. E103 OF 2025** **DINESH CHANDULAL MOKHA .......................................... APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **STEPHEN WANGUSI FEDHA ............................................. RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This matter is coming up for ruling on the Notice of Motion dated **15th January 2026**. It is on record that at the last mention, the court, while considering the application as a live matter, gave directions that both counsels file submissions in respect of the said application. 2. However, upon a careful perusal of the court record, this court notes that the Notice of Motion dated **15th January 2026** had already been dismissed by Hon. Lady Justice M. S. Shariff on **27th January 2026** for want of attendance, with no order as to costs. 3. The court is new to this file, hence notes that it had not fully appraised itself of the proceedings gone by when the motion came up and further that the said orders by the Hon Shariff J were not brought to the court’s attention by either of the parties and this could because both learned counsels were absent when the said orders were given. 4. In the premises, there is no subsisting Application dated 15th January 2026 capable of determination by this court. The court is therefore *functus officio* in respect of the said application for reasons that the Hon lady Justice Sharrif is of a concurrent jurisdiction to this court. 5. The doctrine of *functus officio* is well established in law. Once a court has duly exercised its jurisdiction in respect of a matter, it becomes devoid of jurisdiction to revisit the same, save as may be permitted by law. 6. The above said, the court notes that the appeal itself remains pending and has neither been heard nor determined but directions were given. As a result, the court orders; 1. That the Notice of Motion dated 15th January 2026 is hereby marked as spent. 2. That the directions issued by Honourable Lady Justice Shariff on 27th January 2026 regarding the appeal stand and are now hereby restated. The same are therefore to be complied with as per the timelines therein set by Hon Sharrif J save that they are to be computed from the date of this ruling *to wit;* 1. That the appeal is admitted for hearing on 27th January 2027; 2. That the appellant is directed to file and serve a record of appeal together with submissions within 28 days from today’s date, and the respondents are directed to file their submissions within 42 days from the same date. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs, and the matter was fixed for mention on 10th September to confirm compliance. **Read Dated and Signed Virtually at BUNGOMA on 9th July 2026** **E. OMINDE** **JUDGE**