[2023] KEELC 18979 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 18979 (KLR)

The court held that it retains jurisdiction to review its own decisions under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provided that no appeal has been filed against the judgment in question. The doctrine of functus officio does not bar the court from entertaining a review...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 18979 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Odoyo Opany; Respondent: Ronald Ochieng Odhiambo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 42 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Jurisdiction of Court, Functus Officio, Appellate Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Jurisdiction of Court Functus Officio Appellate Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Odoyo Opany

Appellant

Ronald Ochieng Odhiambo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the court is functus officio after delivering judgment and thus lacks jurisdiction to review its own decision.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant can seek review of the judgment in the absence of an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it retains jurisdiction to review its own decisions under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provided that no appeal has been filed against the judgment in question. The doctrine of functus officio does not bar the court from entertaining a review application where the statutory conditions for review are met and no appeal is pending. The respondent's preliminary objection, premised on the argument that the court was functus officio, was therefore not sustainable. The court found that the options of review and appeal are not simultaneously available, and since no appeal had been filed, the application for review was properly...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated October 31, 2022 is disallowed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.