[2025] KEELC 645 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 645 (KLR)

The court held that it was functus officio, having already delivered its final judgment on 25th April 2024. As such, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain or reinstate the notice of motion dated 1st July 2024, which had been dismissed for non-attendance. The court further noted that reinstating the application would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 645 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Johnson Gatauwa James; Respondent: Leah Wanjiru Mburu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Notice of Motion
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Functus Officio, Reinstatement of Application, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Functus Officio Reinstatement of Application Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnson Gatauwa James

Appellant

Leah Wanjiru Mburu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether the court can reinstate a notice of motion after it has delivered final judgment and become functus officio.
  2. 2 Whether there is merit in the application for reinstatement of the notice of motion dismissed for non-attendance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was functus officio, having already delivered its final judgment on 25th April 2024. As such, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain or reinstate the notice of motion dated 1st July 2024, which had been dismissed for non-attendance. The court further noted that reinstating the application would serve no purpose, and that the appellant's proper recourse, if dissatisfied with the judgment, was to pursue an appeal. Consequently, the application for reinstatement was found to be without merit and was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 27th September 2025 is dismissed.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.