Equip Agencies Limited & another v Gitau Ngigi Mureithi Njoroge (Sued as office bearers of Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group) & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 89 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 30 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Once a Kenyan court finalises its decision, it cannot issue new orders—you must seek protection from the Court of Appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court, having delivered its Ruling of 18th July 2024 dismissing the Plaintiffs' application and striking out the suit, is functus officio and without jurisdiction to entertain the two applications for injunction pending appeal
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunctive orders preserving L.R No. Gilgil Township Block 2/210 pending an intended appeal and an application under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Functus officio and jurisdiction
Having perfected its judgment of 18th July 2024, declared the suit res judicata, and been informed that the Plaintiffs had elected to appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain fresh injunction applications pending appeal.
The court adopted the Black's Law Dictionary definition of functus officio and the Supreme Court-endorsed formulation in Jersey Evening Post Limited v Al Thani, that a court is functus once it has performed all its duties and its judgment has been perfected. The matter had been concluded in Nairobi High Court Comm Case No. 87 of 2019, the suit was struck out as res judicata, and the Plaintiffs had chosen the appellate route, leaving no jurisdiction in this court.
Injunction pending appeal after striking out suit
No injunction pending appeal can issue where there is no subsisting suit to anchor it and where the court is functus officio.
The 1st Defendant argued, and the court effectively accepted, that the suit having been struck out on 18th July 2024 there was no suit in existence in which an application for injunction could be anchored. The applications also mirrored the application dated 2nd August 2023 already dismissed as res judicata, so granting them would amount to the court sitting on appeal over its own ruling.
Legal principles established
#- A court becomes functus officio once its judgment or order has been perfected; any challenge must be taken to a higher court.
- A party who elects to appeal against a ruling cannot thereafter invoke the same court's jurisdiction for interim relief anchored on that ruling.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applications dated 30th July 2024 and 2nd August 2024 are dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e), 75(1), 95) and Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (Orders 42, 50, 51)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from evicting, selling or interfering with L.R No. Gilgil Township Block 2/210 pending the intended appeal and Rule 5(2)(b) application
The court held it is functus officio: the judgment was perfected, prior injunction applications were rejected, the suit was declared res judicata, and the Plaintiffs elected to appeal; the court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applications.
Costs
Applications dismissed with costs to the Defendants/Respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case.
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.
the Plaintiffs having elected to appeal against the said Ruling of the court, this court is functus oficio and without jurisdiction to entertain the instant Applications dated the 30th July 2024 and 2nd August 2024 which are herein dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment inconsistently dates the dismissal ruling context: paragraph 19 cites a Ruling dated 3rd June 2022 in Equip Agencies Limited & 5 Others v I&M Bank Limited & Another (HCC No. E943 of 2021), while paragraph 46 refers to the matter being concluded in Nairobi High Court Comm Case No. 87 of 2019; the two case numbers differ without reconciliation.
Responding affidavit of the 1st Defendant opposing the 1st Plaintiff's application is dated 16th September 2024, yet paragraph 17 states it 'reiterated the contents of his Replying Afidavit dated 25th September, 2024', a later date.
The judgment repeatedly spells the doctrine as 'functus oficio' rather than 'functus officio'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equip Agencies Limited & another v Gitau Ngigi Mureithi Njoroge (Sued as office bearers of Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group) & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 89 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 30 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated (Applications dated 30th July 2024 and 2nd August 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/30/eng@2025-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.