Likama v Sinkeen & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 496 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 153 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court refused a post-judgment eviction bid, confirming Kenyan courts cannot reopen decided land cases except through review or 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 has jurisdiction to entertain the Notice of Motion dated 4th September 2025 given that judgment has been delivered in this matter
- 2.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 4th September 2025 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the court retains jurisdiction after delivering judgment, given the doctrine of functus officio
The court is functus officio and cannot adjudicate fresh claims, such as the applicant's claim over parcel Kajiado/Elangata-Wuas/613, after the suit has been concluded; the exceptions are limited to review or correction of errors
The court found the application was not one to execute the decree from the 29th July 2025 judgment, which concerned only parcel 612. The applicant was inviting fresh adjudication on a different property (parcel 613) after the suit was concluded. Relying on Kabansora Millers, the Supreme Court in Odinga v IEBC, and Court of Appeal authorities, the court held that once final judgment is rendered the court ceases to have jurisdiction save for review or correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. The application fell outside those exceptions and was dismissed with costs.
Whether the pending appeal by the Plaintiff ousts the court's jurisdiction to issue further orders
The court did not determine this issue expressly, dismissing the application instead on functus officio grounds
The Plaintiff had argued that having filed a Notice of Appeal dated 1st August 2025, the court lacked jurisdiction to issue further orders pending the intended appeal. The court framed only two issues: jurisdiction post-judgment and whether the application was merited. It resolved the matter on the doctrine of functus officio without separately addressing the pendency of the appeal, rendering that argument unnecessary to the outcome.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court has rendered its final decision it ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter, save for specific exceptions such as review or correction of clerical or arithmetical errors
- A court cannot entertain new claims or issues falling outside the scope of execution of the decree after judgment has been delivered
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4th September 2025 is dismissed for want of merit with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 152E-H of the Land Act and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act invoked by the applicant; the court's jurisdiction considered under the doctrine of functus officio
Relief refused
#Order of eviction against the Respondents from land parcel Kajiado/Elangata-Wuas/3648 (formerly Kajiado/Elangata-Wuas/613)
The court was functus officio; the application sought adjudication on parcel 613, which was not determined in the judgment of 29th July 2025
Direction that the OCS, Police Post Mile 46, provide security and police assistance during enforcement of the eviction
Ancillary to the eviction order which was refused; the court lacked jurisdiction over the new claim concerning parcel 613
Costs of the application to the Applicant
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent instead
Costs
Application dismissed for want of merit with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent
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.
I find that this application materially ofiends the doctrine of functus oficio. The doctrine of functus oficio dictates that once a court has rendered its final decision, it ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter, save for specific exceptions such as review or correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.
Applying these principles to the instant case, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain new claims or issues that fall outside the scope of execution of the decree resulting from the judgment delivered on 29th July 2025.
The upshot is that the application dated 4th September 2025 is dismissed for want of merit with costs to the Plaintifi/Respondent. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Telkom Kenya Limited v Ochanda is cited with a KESC (Supreme Court) citation but the judgment attributes it to the Court of Appeal
The 6th Defendant/Applicant's name is spelled inconsistently ('Ole Kipas' in the application heading, 'Ole Kepas' in the affidavit reference)
The judgment does not state the suit case number or neutral citation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Likama v Sinkeen & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 496 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 153 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/153/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.