Longurokol v Lokudo (Environment and Land Case 118 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 2225 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to reopen a concluded case because the applicant neither properly changed advocates nor met the strict legal grounds for a review.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Leave to come on record post-judgment under Order 9 rule 9
Leave was not granted because the erstwhile advocates were not shown to have been served or duly notified
Order 9 rule 9 protects advocates from mischievous clients who sack them after judgment. The court found no return of service confirming that the incoming firm served the outgoing firm, and noted the erstwhile advocates had not been duly notified. Without proof of such service, the court could not grant the leave sought.
Whether the court should review its judgment
The application for review was refused for failure to meet the Order 45 threshold and because the court was functus officio
The court restated the functus officio principle and the limited grounds for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1(b). The applicant invited the court to revisit a suit it had already determined on merits, which was impermissible. Any grievance about an unlawful eviction could not be entertained within a concluded matter.
Status quo and restraint orders
Refused as ancillary to the failed review application
The status quo and restraining orders depended on the success of the review, which failed. The court noted that its judgment had found the applicant's suit lacking in merit and that no positive order had been issued in favour of the respondent other than on costs, so any eviction by the respondent would be a fresh cause of action, not a matter for reopening the concluded suit.
Legal principles established
#- A court becomes functus officio upon delivery of a final judgment and cannot reopen a matter it has determined on the merits, save for the recognised exceptions
- Leave is required for a change of advocate, or for a party to act in person, after judgment has been passed
- Review is restricted to the grounds of discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, and must be made without unreasonable delay
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's application is dismissed with costs
- 2.File closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 45, 51 and Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Longurokol v Lokudo (Environment and Land Case 118 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 2225 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated on the face of the ruling (suit land West Pokot/Kishaunet/695; judgment of 15/10/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2225/eng@2026-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.