Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismisses review bid, warns against using review as a disguised appeal.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed an application by Charles Kiri Thube to review its earlier judgment. The Court said its review power is very limited and cannot be used to re-argue a case. The applicant wanted the Court to re-evaluate evidence and explain its reasoning, which is not allowed in a review. The Court found this was an abuse of process, especially since the applicant had already filed a similar application that was dismissed. The application was thrown out, and the applicant must pay the respondents' costs.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause for the grant of orders for review of the Judgment delivered on 11th April 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for review of a Supreme Court judgment under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020.
The applicant failed to meet the threshold because the application did not allege or demonstrate fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, lack of jurisdiction, or any other ground within the narrow scope of review.
The Court applied the principles from Outa Vs Okello & 3 others, which limit review to four exceptional grounds: fraud or deceit, nullity (e.g., lack of jurisdiction), mistaken belief of consent, or a judgment based on a repealed or concealed law. The applicant's request for the Court to re-evaluate evidence and provide a rationale for its earlier conclusion was a challenge to the merits of the judgment, which is not a ground for review. The Court noted that the applicant had previously filed an application for enlargement of time, which was dismissed, and that the present application was an abuse of process.
Whether the application amounted to an abuse of court process.
Yes, the application was an abuse of process because it was a disguised attempt to appeal the Court's decision and was filed after a previous application on the same matter had been dismissed.
The Court found that the applicant's conduct of persistently filing applications without reasonable grounds, including the present one which sought to relitigate the merits of the judgment, was vexatious and exposed the respondents to unnecessary expense. The Court emphasized that review is not a vehicle for a second bite at the cherry.
Legal principles established
#- Supreme Court review is only for errors on the face of the record or exceptional grounds like fraud, nullity, or lack of jurisdiction.
- Review cannot be used as a disguised appeal to re-argue the merits of a case.
- Persistently filing baseless applications that waste time and money is an abuse of court process.
- A party cannot get a second chance to litigate the same issues after losing a previous application.
- The Court will not reopen a judgment just because a party disagrees with the reasoning or outcome.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2026 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Not specified in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 23A of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 9B; Rule 3(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2020
Relief refused
#Review, vary, vacate and/or set aside the Judgment delivered on 11th April 2025
The applicant failed to bring itself within the narrow and exceptional grounds upon which this Court may exercise its review jurisdiction.
Address in the Judgment the issue of how the applicant was aware or had prior notice that the title was unprocedurally acquired
The application amounts to a challenge of the Court's determination and a disguised appeal, not a review.
Give a judgment that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser for value
The Court declined to reopen the merits of the case on review.
Costs
The applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
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.
As a general rule, this Court does not sit on appeal over its own judgments and will not reopen them, save for the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record or in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, and only in exceptional circumstances to meet the ends of justice
we find that the applicant has failed to bring itself within the narrow and exceptional grounds upon which this Court may exercise its review jurisdiction.
The Court does not sit on appeal over its own decisions, and its review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a vehicle for a second bite at the cherry.
The Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2026 is hereby dismissed.
The applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Limit review arguments to narrow grounds
When drafting a review application to the Supreme Court, strictly limit arguments to the four grounds in Outa v Okello: fraud, nullity, mistaken belief of consent, or a judgment based on a repealed/concealed law. Do not ask the Court to re-evaluate evidence or explain its reasoning—that is an appeal, not a review, and will be dismissed as an abuse of process.
Finality of Supreme Court decisions
Once the Supreme Court rules on a property or commercial dispute, that decision is final. You cannot ask the Court to reconsider just because you disagree with its reasoning. The only way to challenge it is through a very narrow review for fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Plan your litigation strategy accordingly, as repeated applications will be costly and unsuccessful.
Don't file repeated court applications
If you lose a case in the Supreme Court, filing multiple applications on the same issue will be seen as an abuse of process. The Court will dismiss them and order you to pay the other side's legal fees. Focus on the original appeal process, not on trying to reopen a closed case through review.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I appeal a Supreme Court judgment in Kenya?+
No, the Supreme Court is the highest court in Kenya. Its judgments are final. You can only apply for a review, but only on very limited grounds like fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or an error on the face of the record.
What is an abuse of court process in Kenya?+
An abuse of court process happens when someone files repeated, baseless applications that waste the court's time and force the other party to spend money on legal fees. The Supreme Court in this case found that filing a review to re-argue a lost case was an abuse.
How do I apply for review of a Supreme Court judgment in Kenya?+
You must file a Notice of Motion under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020. You must show one of four grounds: fraud, nullity, mistaken belief of consent, or that the judgment relied on a repealed or concealed law.
What happens if my Supreme Court review application is dismissed in Kenya?+
The application is dismissed with costs, meaning you must pay the other party's legal fees. You cannot file another review on the same grounds. The original judgment remains final and binding.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission v Kosachey & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 135 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 1622 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1622 (KLR)17 Mar 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others", Case Analysis (2026). Petition (Application) E033 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/39/eng@2026-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.