https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4133

Makongeni Residents Association (MARA) v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme; Attorney General & 5 others (Interested Parties); Ministry of Finance & another (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E067 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4133 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4133 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E067 of 2023 TW Murigi, J June 29, 2026 Between Makongeni Residents Association (MARA) Plaintiff and Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme Defendant and The Attorney General Interested Party The Kenya National Lands Commission Interested Party The County Government of Nairobi Interested Party Rift Valley Railways Workers Union Interested Party The Retirement Benefits Authority Interested Party Ministry of Transport Infrastructure, Housing Urban Development and Public Works Interested Party and Ministry of Finance Intended Interested Party Kenya Railways Corportation Intended Interested Party Ruling 1.This ruling concerns the issue of whether Mr Munai Opondo Isaac has the requisite locus standi to participate in these proceedings. When this matter came up for directions on 24th September 2025, Mr. Mwenesi, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, informed the Court that he had received instructions to withdraw both the application and the suit in its entirety. 2.Mr. Munai informed the Court that the matter was scheduled for directions regarding his application to be joined as the 2nd Plaintiff. The application was opposed by Ms Ndirangu, learned Counsel, who argued that Mr. Munai lacked the requisite locus standi to participate in these proceedings. Counsel contended that in a ruling dated 19th September 2023, the Court had conclusively determined that Mr. Munai lacked locus standi to participate in these proceedings. She asserted that an application seeking to stay the said ruling had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28th February 2025. Counsel therefore argued that there was no legal basis upon which Mr. Munai could continue participating in the matter and that the withdrawal was merely a procedural formality. 3.When the matter came up for further directions on 16th October 2025, Mr. Mwenesi informed the Court that a Notice of withdrawal of suit had been duly filed. Ms Ndirangu relied on the rulings dated 19th September 2023 and 28th February 2025 and reiterated that the issue of Mr. Munai’s standing had already been determined. 4.Ms Kiiru, learned Counsel for the 4th Interested Party, associated herself with Ms Ndirangu’s submissions. She informed the Court that they had filed a Notice to withdraw the applications dated 22nd September 2025 and 14th June 2025, which had been filed by Mr. Munai without authority. She maintained that the 4th Interested Party was not interested in participating in these proceedings. 5.In response, Mr. Munai argued that no notice of instructions had been produced, demonstrating that the Union issued instructions to Ms Kiiru. Submissions 6.Mr. Munai Opondo Isaac filed his submissions dated 23rd February 2026, 7.In his submissions, he addressed the question of whether he possessed the authority and legal capacity to represent the interests of the 4th Interested Party. 8.Mr. Munayi submitted that the issue of his locus standi was no longer open for determination, arguing that the Court had become functus officio on the issue. He argued that the proceedings before Mogeni J allowed for the transition of the 4th Interested Party into the position of 2nd Plaintiff without objection, and that the pleadings relating to that application remain properly on record and capable of judicial consideration. 9.He further submitted that the 4th Interested Party is a legal entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, and therefore, he could not be said to lack locus to act on its behalf. To support this argument, reliance was placed on Order 9 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which recognizes authorized representatives as persons competent to draft, file, and prosecute proceedings on behalf of recognized entities. 10.It was submitted that under Section 2 of the Labour Relations Act, the authorised representative derives authority directly from the statute or from the office of the General Secretary, and not necessarily from instructions issued in each individual case. Based on the foregoing, he maintained that his authority was statutory in nature and did not require fresh instructions before instituting or continuing proceedings. 11.Mr. Munai contends that the constitution relied upon by the Advocates allegedly instructed by the 4th Interested Party has since been repealed, and that the authority of those advocates had been expressly repudiated by the union in 2021. 12.It was therefore submitted that, in the absence of a valid Memorandum of Appointment or letter of instructions, the advocates purporting to represent the 4th Interested Party lacked the requisite authority to act, and the pleadings filed on behalf of the 4th Interested Party should be expunged from the record. He further contended that the Union’s Constitution expressly authorizes the Secretary General and other authorized representatives to represent its members in legal proceedings without requiring approval from the National Executive Board. 13.It was submitted that one of the three individuals who addressed the advocate with the letter of appointment, namely David Ogega Onditi, the Union’s Deputy Secretary General, has since allegedly repudiated the authority. Mr. Munayi further argued that no letter of instructions to act on behalf of the 4th Interested Party has been presented to the court. He denied that the firm of Counsel Kiiru had been appointed to represent the 4th Interested Party. 14.Finally, Mr. Munayi submitted that the ruling delivered by Justice Mogeni is currently the subject of a pending application for review. He urged the Court to consider the earlier decisions rendered by Ongeri J, Meoli J, Onyango J, and Omange J in determining the issues before it. Analysis And Determination 15.Having considered the record and the submissions by the parties, the only issue for determination is whether Munayi Opondo Isaac has the requisite locus standi to represent the 4th Interested Party. 16.Locus standi is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:“the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum." 17.In Alfred Njau and Others vs City Council of Nairobi (1982) KAR 229, the Court defined the term “Locus Standi” as follows;“The term Locus Standi means a right to appear in Court, and conversely to say that a person has no Locus Standi means that he has no right to appear or be heard in such and such proceedings." 18.The record shows that the of Mr. Munai’s standing was conclusively determined in the ruling delivered by Mogeni J on 19th September 2023. 19.In that ruling, the Court concluded that Munai Opondo Isaac, not being an advocate, lacked the legal capacity to represent the 4th Interested Party or to draw, file, or prosecute pleadings on its behalf. The Court further found that the Rift Valley Railways Workers Union, as constituted in those proceedings, lacked the juridical capacity to institute and sustain the application. 20.Those findings conclusively determined the issue of locus standi regarding both Mr. Munayi and the purported representation of the 4th Interested Party. 21.The doctrine of functus officio precludes a Court from reopening or reconsidering a matter that has been conclusively determined in the same proceedings by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 22.Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, defines functus officio as follows:“Having performed his or her office (of an officer or official body) without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished. 23.The doctrine of functus officio was articulated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda (2014) e KLR as follows:“functus officio is an enduring principle of law that prevents the re-opening of a matter before a court that rendered the final decision thereon.” 24.Similarly, in Jersey Evening Post Limited v Al Thani (2002) JLR, which was cited by the Supreme Court in the case of Raila Odinga & 2 Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others 2013 eKLR, the Court held that:“…A court is functus officio 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 is 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 or adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available… 25.It is common ground that the ruling has neither been set aside, varied, nor stayed. Although Mr. Munai has filed a Notice of Appeal and a review application dated 4th January 2026, which remain pending, neither process suspends the legal effect of the impugned ruling. 26.In the absence of an order staying or setting aside that decision, this Court lacks jurisdiction to revisit the issue of locus standi or to entertain arguments that, in essence, seek to reopen that matter which has already been conclusively determined. 27.Consequently, this Court cannot, under the guise of determining the question of representation, sit on appeal over, or otherwise undermine, the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction. 28.In the end, I find that unless the ruling of 19th September 2023 is set aside or varied, Munayi Opondo Isaac has no locus standi to represent the 4th Interested Party in these proceedings. RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.…………………………………….HON. T. MURIGIJUDGEIn The Presence Of:Ms Mungai holding brief for Ms Ndirangu for the 1st RespondentNyakiti holding brief for Agwara for the 3rd RespondentMs Kiiru for the 4th Interested PartyMunai Isack in person for the Interested Party/2nd PlaintiffAhmed – Court assistant