Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtDismissedPetition (Application) E033 of 2023· [2026] KESC 39 (KLR)

Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others

Supreme Court of Kenya
19 June 2026
Martha Karambu KoomeM.K. KoomePhilomena Mbete MwiluP.M. MwiluSmokin Charles WanjalaS.C. WanjalaWilliam OukoI. Lenaola W. Ouko
1,553 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
This ruling arises from a Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2026, filed by Charles Kiri Thube (the applicant), seeking review, variation, vacation, or setting aside of the Supreme Court's judgment delivered on 11th April 2025. In that judgment, the Court had held that the applicant's claim as a bona fide purchaser for value could not succeed because due process was not followed in the reallocation of the suit property, LR No. 209/2759/9, to the 2nd respondent. The applicant argued that the Court failed to address how he was aware of or had prior notice of the unprocedural acquisition, and sought a clarification or a different outcome. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that it was a disguised appeal, an abuse of process, and that the applicant had not met the strict threshold for review under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020. The Court, guided by the principles in Outa Vs Okello & 3 others, reaffirmed that its review jurisdiction is limited to exceptional grounds such as fraud, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or concealment of a statutory provision. The Court found that the applicant's request to re-evaluate evidence and provide a rationale for its conclusion was a challenge to the merits of the judgment, which is not a ground for review but belongs to an appeal. The Court also 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. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

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.

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 3
02

Whether the application amounted to an abuse of court process.

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 3

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. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th January 2026 is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.The applicant shall bear the costs of this application.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Supreme Court ActSection 3A
  • Supreme Court ActSection 23A
  • Supreme Court ActSection 21A
  • Supreme Court Rules, 2020Rule 3(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules, 2020Rule 28(5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Outa Vs Okello & 3 others
    [2017] KESC 25 (KLR)
  • County Assembly of Migori Vs Aluochier & 2 others
    [2024] KESC 7 (KLR)
  • Dari Limited & 5 others Vs East African Development Bank
    [2023] KESC 93 (KLR)
  • Rai & 3 others Vs Rai & 4 others
    [2014] KESC 31 (KLR)
  • Katende Vs Haridar & Company Limited
    [2008] 2 EA 173
  • Elizabeth Wambui Githinji & 29 others Vs Kenya Urban Roads Authority
    [2019] eKLR
  • Shimoni Resort Vs Registrar of Titles & 5 others
    [2016] eKLR
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

Key timeline

#
2025-04-11
Supreme Court delivered judgment against Charles Kiri Thube.
2026-01-30
Thube filed Notice of Motion seeking review of the judgment.
2026 (later)
Supreme Court dismissed the review application with costs.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

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.

For businesses

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.

For individuals

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 (11)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

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.