Introduction
1. In the Notice of Motion Application dated 22 nd February 2025, the Applicants seek the following reliefs:
i. Spent.
ii. Spent.
iii. The Court be pleased to find and hold that the Communication/Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent delivered on 12 th February, 2025 on Majority Party and Minority Party in the National Assembly is inconsistent with and violates the Judgement and orders of this Court dated 7 th February, 2025.
iv. The Court be pleased to find and hold that the Communication/Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent delivered on 12 th February, 2025 on Majority Party and Minority Party in the National Assembly constitutes contempt of the Judgement and orders of this Court made on 7 th January, 2025.
v. The Court be pleased to set aside or otherwise quash the Communication/Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent delivered on 12 th February, 2025 on Majority Party and Minority Party in the National Assembly.
vi. The Court be pleased to find and hold that subsequent to the delivery of the Judgement dated 7 th February, 2025, the 4 th Respondent could not lawfully discharge his duties as Speaker of the National Assembly so long as he remained a political leader in Ford-Kenya and in Kenya Kwanza Coalition - the 19 th and 1 st Respondents herein respectively.
vii. The Court do issue summons to Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula, the 4 th Respondent herein, to attend to and appear before the Court on a date to be determined to show cause why he should not be committed to jail or penalized for contempt of court.
viii. The Court be pleased to commit the 4 th Respondent, Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula, to jail for six months or penalized on such terms as the Court may determine, for contempt of court for having willfully, recklessly and nonchalantly disobeyed the orders of this Court contained in the Judgement delivered on 7 th February, 2025.
ix. The Judgement delivered on 7 th February, 2025 be amended at paragraph 508 to include two orders or reliefs to be numbered (v) and (vi) providing as follows:
x. A declaration be issued to declare that the 4th Respondent - Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula - cannot continue to serve as Speaker of the National Assembly unless and until he resigns as the political leader of Ford-Kenya and as leader in the Kenya Kwanza Coalition - the 19 th and 1 st Respondents herein.
xi. An Order of Prohibition be issued to prohibit the 4th Respondent - Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula - from serving as the Speaker of the National Assembly so long as he remains a political leader in Ford-Kenya and the Kenya Kwanza Coalition - the 19 th and 1 st Respondents herein respectively.
xii. The Court be pleased to find and hold that Parliamentary Proceedings in the National Assembly presided over by the 4 th Respondent as long as he remains the leader of Ford-Kenya Party and a principal of Kenya Kwanza Coalition, shall be deemed as unlawful, null and void ab initio.
xiii. The Court be pleased to issue any other or further orders to protect the Rule of Law, the dignity and authority of the Court and to prevent further acts of impropriety on the part of the 3 rd Respondent.
xiv. Costs of this application be borne by the 4 th Respondent personally.
Applicant’s Case
2. The Application is supported by the 1 st Applicant’s affidavit, sworn on even date.
3. The Applicants reiterate that on 7 th February 2025, this Court quashed the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 6 th October 2022.Dissatisfied with the pronouncement, the Respondents filed their respective Notices of Appeal on 7 th , 11 th and 13 th February 2025.Subsequently, the 2 nd , 6 th ,7 th , 8 th and 9 th Respondent filed an application for stay of execution of this Court’s Judgment. Similarly, the 3 rd Respondent filed his application for stay on 14 th February 2025.
4. The 1 st Applicant depones that on 7 th February 2025, the Deputy Speaker of the 2 nd Respondent, Hon. Gladys Shollei on behalf of the 3 rd Respondent wrote to the 5 th Respondent seeking information on membership of the 21 parties represented in the House, including coalition political parties and the dates relevant to the membership. Additionally, information on any variations in the membership of the coalitions and coalition political parties, and the dates of the variations and certified copies of pre-election and post-election coalition agreements relating to the parties and the status of the agreements.
5. According to the Applicant, the 5 th Respondent in a response dated 11 th February 2025 responded as follows:
i. That 5 parties had exited the Azimio La Umoja One Kenya Coalition Party, namely:
a) People's Liberation Party (formerly the National Rainbow Coalition Kenya) on 6 th December 2024.
b) Maendeleo Chap Chap Party on 25 th January, 2024.
c) Devolution Empowerment Party on 11 th April, 2023.
d) United Demoratic Movement on 22 nd November, 2023.
e) Pamoja African Alliance on 27 th February, 2023.
ii. That the Amani National Congress (ANC) was in the process of dissolving the party to collaborate with the United Democratic Alliance.
iii. That the Movement for Development and Growth (MDG) had initiated a process of exiting the Azimio La Umoja One Kenya Coalition but was yet to finalize its exit from the Coalition Political Party.
iv. That as at 11 th February, 2025, the Pamoja African Alliance (PAA), Maendeleo Chap Chap Party (MCCP), United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the National Ordinary People Empowerment Union (NOPEU) are not members of any registered coalition or coalition political party.
6. The Applicant depones that in light of this correspondence, the members of the 2 nd Respondent convened at Parliament on the same day at 2:30 P.M. He contends that on account of reversal of the Ruling dated 6 th October 2022, the 3 rd Respondent was enjoined to inform the 2 nd Respondent that the Court had determined that the 1 st Interested Party was the majority party while the 1 st Respondent the minority party. In the session, the House sought to approve the appointment of Members of the House Business Committee.
7. The Applicant further claims that during the live proceedings, the 3 rd Respondent failed to communicate the re-organization of the leadership of the 2 nd Respondent to allow the 1 st Interested Party to assume the status of Majority Party in accordance with this Court’s Judgment, a matter that was also raised by Hon.Millie Odhiambo during the proceedings.
8. The Applicant contends that in protest vide a letter dated 12 th February 2025, he informed the 3 rd Respondent that he had once again arrogated upon himself the power to determine the question on the majority and minority party notwithstanding this Court’s Judgment. He contends as such that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 constitutes a gross contempt of court and violates the principles of natural justice.
9. Further to this, the 1 st Applicant pleaded that if at all the 3 rd Respondent and Hon. Gladys Shollei, had discovered new evidence showing that the 1 st Respondent is the majority party, then the proper recourse ought to have been to the Court of Appeal. In light of the foregoing, it is asserted that the 3 rd Respondent usurped the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in considering the new evidence obtained from the 5 th Respondent hence the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 is unlawful, null and void ab-initio .
10. Furthermore, the 1 st Applicant postulates that it is necessary that an express declaration is made that the 3 rd Respondent cannot serve as Speaker of the National Assembly as long as he remains a political leader in the 1 st and 19 th Respondent. Additionally, he argues that the impugned Ruling is a threat to constitutional democracy and public interest occasioned by the dual roles of the 3 rd Respondent. In view of the foregoing, it is the Applicants case that the Court allows the Application and grant the reliefs sought.
2 nd Respondent’s Case
11. In rebuttal to the Application, the 2 nd Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the Application dated 3 rd April 2025 on the grounds that:
i. The Application is an attempt to litigate a new cause of action in the present proceedings and seeks orders challenging the Communication by the Rt. Hon Speaker of the National Assembly dated 12 th February, 2025 delivered after the Judgement of this Court, which cause of action can only be litigated through the institution of new proceedings.
ii. This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the orders sought, as the present Application invites the Court to sit on appeal, review, reopen and/or reconsider its Judgment delivered on 7 th February 2025, which rendered this Court functus officio.
iii. The 3 rd and 4 th Respondents enjoy Parliamentary immunity from contempt proceedings and contempt proceedings cannot issue against him in his individual capacity in respect of any actions carried out by him in the exercise of the official functions of his office under Article 117 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017.
iv. In any event, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review its Judgement because the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 6 th , 7 th , 8 th , 9 th Respondents, the 8 th and 9 th Interested Parties have filed and served all parties with Civil Appeal Nos. E096, E098, E103, E105 and E109 all of 2025 , on the very issues that the Applicants' Application seeks to reopen.
12. Further to this, the 2 nd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit by the Clerk, Samuel Njoroge sworn on 11 th July 2025. On the outset, he challenges this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the Application raises new issues which were not addressed by the Court. He underscores that the contents of the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 were not the subject of this Court’s Judgment dated 7 th February 2025. He contends that the Applicants ought to have instituted new proceedings challenging the Ruling to address the same.
13. Further, the 2 nd Respondent contends that, the Applicants are effectively inviting this Court to sit on appeal over its own decision and to review the same. He contends that this Court became functus officio when it pronounced itself in its judgment. He further depones that, although the Applicants now seek additional orders through the Application, the Court should note that the Applicants in the Amended Petition had, among other reliefs, sought an order to quash the election of the 3 rd Respondent. However, the Court only granted five orders and declined to issue the other orders.
14. The 2 nd Respondent depones that there are currently five pending appeals against the cited Judgment, being: Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E096 of 2015, E098 of 2015, E103 of 2015, E105 of 2015 and E109 of 2015 . Considering this, he argues that the Applicant’s recourse lies to the Court of Appeal.
15. The 2 nd Respondent further depones that on 11 th February 2025, the 2 nd Respondent convened the fourth session at 2:30 P.M. The agenda of the meeting was reconstitution of the House Business Committee (HBC), which comprises of members from the majority and minority party. He contends that the function of the HBC is to prepare the agenda for the House. He notes however that following this Court’s Judgment, confusion arose as to which party is the majority party as well as sitting arrangements. At this juncture, Hon. Millie Odhiambo raised a Point of Order noting that the 1 st Interested Party was pronounced as the Majority Party in the cited Judgment.
16. The 2 nd Respondent swears that following this, the House discussed whether the Court, in its findings, designated any party as the Majority Party or any party as the Minority Party in the House, the implications of the Judgment to the continuity of the Business of the House, whether the Judgment rendered the Constitution of the HBC, which is the core business at the first sitting of the House in a new Session, impossible, whether the Judgment rendered the transaction of the Business of the House impracticable and whether the Judgment affects other facets of the House that are determined by the relative majorities and coalition arrangements, such as Deputy Party Leaders, Whips, Chairing and membership of all House Committees, membership of the Parliamentary Service Commission; nominations to the IEBC Selection Panel and to the Commission on Revenue Allocation .
17. In the foregoing, the 3 rd Respondent rendered his Ruling on 12 th February 2025 guiding that the 1 st Respondent is the Majority party and the 1 st Interested Party is the minority party in the House. To this end, Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah moved a motion for the approval of appointment of the members of the HBC.
18. According to the 2 nd Respondent, this Court in its Judgment did not decide the question of which party is the majority and minority Party. He underscores that this created a lacuna which resulted in a standoff between the two parties. Consequently, in order to facilitate continuity of the business of the House which was at a standstill, the 3 rd Respondent issued guidance on the issues raised by the House the previous day, in accordance with his oath and mandate under Article 107 of the Constitution and Standing Order 1(1) of the National Assembly Standing Orders. On this premise, the 2 nd Respondent contends that the 3 rd Respondent cannot be deemed to have been in contempt of this Court’s orders as advanced by the Applicants.
19. That notwithstanding, the 2 nd Respondent emphasizes that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025, was issued in the course of discharge of his constitutional mandate. As such, he stresses that under Article 117 of the Constitution as read with Section 12(2) of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, the 3 rd Respondent is immune from legal proceedings for acts done in the conduct of his mandate.
20. To this end, the 2 nd Respondent depones that the Application is a non-starter, incompetent and an abuse of the Court process hence ought to be dismissed.
3 rd and 4 th Respondent’s Case
21. In opposition to the Application, the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 3 rd April 2025 on the following grounds:
i. Prior to the institution of the contempt proceedings, the Applicants neither extracted nor served a decree/order of the Court. There is, therefore, no Decree extracted and served by the Applicants on the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents to constitute the contempt proceedings.
ii. The contempt proceedings are muddled up with other causes of action, thereby rendering the contempt application incurably defective and a breach of the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents' right to a fair hearing.
iii. This Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court is limited to disobedience of its orders or decrees. There exists no order or decree arising from the judgment of this Court which is capable of enforcement through contempt proceedings.
iv. There is no dispositive order that was made by this Court capable of being violated by the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents or enforcement by this Court in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
v. There is no order of the Court that required the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents to do or refrain from doing anything capable of being enforced through contempt proceedings.
vi. The application for contempt against the 3 rd and 4 th Respondent in discharging his official duties is in direct violation of Article 117 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017.
22. Furthermore, the 4 th Respondent filed his Replying Affidavit sworn on 14 th July 2025. As a preliminary point, he denies disobeying this Court’s Orders hence not guilty of contempt. He swears that the Applicants did not serve him personally with this Court’s decree and neither is a copy of the decree attached to the instant Application. Equally, he points out that the Application does not particularize the specific order allegedly deemed to be breached. On this ground, he argues that the Application is defective and bad in law.
23. Referring to this Court’s Judgment and highlighting the background of the case, the 4 th Respondent outlines that this Court granted prayers d, e, j, k, l and m in the Amended Petition. He emphasizes that the Court under order iv , in the Judgment, declined to grant the other orders sought by the Applicants.
24. Further to this, the 4 th Respondent asserts that in quashing his Ruling dated 6 th October 2022 on leadership of the 2 nd Respondent, the Court contrary to the Applicants claim did not declare any party or coalition of parties as the majority or minority party and neither did it declare any Member of the House as the Leader of the Majority Party or the Leader of the Minority Party. He equally contends that the Court did not issue any orders requiring him to resign as Speaker or from any leadership position in his political parties. On that basis, he maintains that a finding of contempt cannot arise in the absence of a specific order directing such action.
25. He depones that, dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Respondents lodged appeals which are currently pending determination before the Court of Appeal. In his opinion, the instant Application seeks to circumvent these appeals hence is an abuse of the Court process.
26. Recapping the chronology of events in the 2 nd Respondent on 11 th February 2025, he depones that he delivered his Ruling the following day on the issues raised by the House. He depones that his decision was guided by information received from the 5 th Respondent. Ultimately, he resolved that the 1 st Respondent is the majority party and the 1 st Interested Party the minority party, therefore the leadership existing at the end of the last Session remained the leadership of the House.
27. The 4 th Respondent depones that, on the same day, his counsel received a letter from the Applicants demanding his resignation and urging him to enforce this Court’s Judgment, failure to which they would institute contempt of court proceedings. In his opinion, that was a misinterpretation of this Court’s Judgment.
28. The 4 th Respondent stresses that he was mandated by the law to issue guidance following the issues raised by the House, so as to enable the continuity of the 2 nd Respondent functions. Accordingly, he maintains that he acted in good faith. He reiterates that he did not disobey or disregard this Court’s orders.
29. Further to this, the 4 th Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter as a court cannot sit on appeal of its own decision. He points out that such a review can only be done within the confines of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. On this ground, he emphasizes that this Court became functus officio when it rendered its Judgment.
30. In view of the foregoing the 4 th Respondent prays that the Application be dismissed.
1 st , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th Interested Party’s Case
31. In opposition to the Application, the 1 st , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th Interested parties rely on the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 6 th Interested Party on 14 th April 2025.
32. The 6 th Interested Party depones that the 1 st Interested Party has not yet convened a delegates’ conference or invoked its internal procedures for nominating, appointing, and selecting its leadership, namely the Leader of Majority, Deputy Leader of Majority, Majority Chief Whip, and Deputy Majority Chief Whip, as required to comply with this Court’s orders. He notes that the effect of the Court’s orders was to recognize the 1 st Interested Party as the majority party in the 2 nd Respondent.
33. The 6 th Interested Party further deposes that this Court’s judgment is not self-executing , as certain procedural steps must first be undertaken to give it effect, chiefly in light of the fact that the 1 st Interested Party comprises of multiple political parties. In this regard, he contends that it is premature for the Applicants to allege that the 3 rd Respondent is in contempt of the Court’s orders.
34. Additionally, the 6 th Interested Party challenges the Application on the basis that any communication made by a member within the Chambers of the 2 nd Respondent is privileged. On this ground, he argues that the 3 rd Respondent cannot be held in contempt for statements made while the House is in session.
Applicants’ Submissions
35. The Applicants through Kinoti and Company Advocates filed submissions dated 16 th July 2025. Counsel identified the issues for determination as: whether the Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent dated 12 th February, 2025 violates the Judgement delivered on 7 th February, 2024, whether the 3 rd Respondent had jurisdiction to issue the Ruling, whether the 3 rd Respondent's Ruling amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, whether the 4 th Respondent is guilty of contempt of Court, whether the 3 rd Respondent's Ruling should be set aside, whether this Court’s Judgment dated 7 th February 2025 should be amended and whether this Court should declare that its Judgement pronounced the 1 st Interested Party as the Majority Party .
36. On the first issue, Counsel answered in the affirmative. Counsel argued that it is evident that this Court in its pronouncement dated 7 th February 2025 determined that the 1 st Interested Party is the Majority Party. Counsel therefore asserted that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 was in breach of this pronouncement. Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent was instead required to implement the Court’s Judgment not substitute it with his own Ruling. Counsel added that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling was anchored on the 5 th Respondent’s correspondence on the status of the parties, which was new information, that had not been availed to the Court during the hearing. Accordingly, Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling amounts to a brazen violation of this Court’s finding in its Judgment.
37. On the second issue, the learned Counsel argued that the 3 rd Respondent did not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned Ruling and for this reason violated Article 108 of the Constitution. Counsel pointed out that the 3 rd Respondent had lodged an appeal against this Court’s Judgment yet he proceeded to issue his own Ruling before the matter was determined. Counsel stressed that by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, the 3 rd Respondent had no jurisdiction to resolve a dispute that by its very nature required adjudication by a judicial body. Further to this, Counsel argued that in making the impugned Ruling, the 3 rd Respondent violated the principles of natural justice, as he is not supposed to be the complainant, prosecutor and judge in own case.
38. Reliance was placed on Liyanange vs. The Queen (P.C.) [1967] 1 A.C. 259 where it was held as follows:
“As has been indicated already, legislation ad hominem which is thus directed to the course of particular proceedings may not always amount to an interference with the functions of the judiciary. But in the present case their Lordships have no doubt that there was such inte1ference; that it was not only the likely but the intended effect of the impugned enactments; and that it is fatal to their validity. The true nature and purpose of these enactments are revealed by their conjoint impact on the speciific proceedings in respect of which they were designed, and they take their colour, in particular, from the alterations they purported to make as to their ultimate objective, the punishment of those convicted. These alterations constituted a grave and deliberate incursion into the judicial sphere. Quite bluntly, their aim was to ensure that the judges in dealing with these particular persons on these particular charges were deprived of their normal discretion as respects appropriate sentences. They were compelled to sentence each offender on conviction to not less than ten years' imprisonment, and compelled to order confiscation of his possessions, even though his part in the conspiracy might have been trivial.”
39. Moving on to the third issue, Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling amounts to usurpation of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction. This is so because the basis of the impugned Ruling flowed from this Court’s Judgment dated 7 th February 2025. Essentially, the 3 rd Respondent is claimed to be seeking to interpret the said decision with regard to the question which is the majority party and introducing new evidence to come up with his own decision. According to Counsel, the issues raised and new evidence ought to have been presented before the Court of Appeal.
40. In light of foregoing, Counsel argued that the 3 rd Respondent is in contempt of this Court’s order. This is because in spite of this Court’s Judgement, the 3 rd Respondent determined that the 1 st Respondent is the majority party. To buttress this point reliance was placed on Shimmers Plaza Ltd vs. National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2015) eKLR where it was held that:
“We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of Court orders is not optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not… No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour".
41. Further reliance was placed on Johnson Vs Grant (1923) SC 789, Republic v Kenya School of Law & 2 Others ex-parte Juliet Wanjiru Njoroge & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, Cabinet Secretary for Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government Vs Miguna Miguna & 4 others [2018] eKLR and Teachers Service Commission vs. Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others [2013] eKLR .
42. On the fifth issue, it was contended that the 3 rd Respondent’s impugned Ruling ought to be set aside as it was made in contravention of the law. Reliance was placed on Kenya Tea Growers Association Vs Francis Atwoli and 5 Others [2012] eKLR where it was held that:
“I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the courts should be obeyed, willful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal .... even if the Defendants thought that the injunction was improperly obtained or too wide in its terms, that provides no excuse for disobeying it. The remedy is to vary or discharge it.”
43. Similar reliance was placed on Kenya Pipeline Company Limited v Glencore Energy (U.K.) Limited [2015] eKLR and Kelvin Roy Omondi & Boniface Mwangi vs. Attorney General and Others HCCHR Pet E269 of 2025 .
44. Moreover, Counsel contended that this Court’s Judgment ought to be amended so as to reflect and address the issues raised in the instant Application. He underscored that Court decisions ought to be clear to the parties and further opined that by the 3 rd Respondent in holding that the 1 st Respondent’s is the majority party made a mockery of this Court’s Judgment which found that the 1 st Interested Party is the majority party.
45. He relied on Stanley Munga Githunguri v Republic 1986 KEHC 44 (KLR) where it was held that:
“These proceedings have put our Constitution on the anvil. They are the subject of considerable notoriety. They will become a milestone in the legal history of Kenya. The country is watching us. Africa is watching us. Other countries outside, some with their own peculiar systems of administering justice, they are all waiting to see how we will decide this case.
We speak in the knowledge that rights cannot be absolute. They must be balanced against other rights and freedoms and the general welfare of the community. We believe we are speaking correctly and not for the sake of being self-laudatory when we say the Republic of Kenya is praised and admired by other peoples and other systems for the independent manner in which justice is dispensed by the Courts of this country.
We also speak knowing that it is our duty to ask ourselves what is the use of having a Constitution if it is not honoured and respected by the people. The people will lose faith in the Constitution if it fails to give effective protection to their fundamental rights. The people know and believe that destroy the rule of law and you destroy justice, thereby also destroying the society. Justice of any other kind would be as shocking as the crime itself. The ideals of justice keep the people buoyant. The Courts of justice must reflect the opinion of the people.”
2 nd Respondent’s Submissions
46. The 2 nd Respondent through their advocate Sandra Nganyi filed submissions dated 14 th July 2025. According to the learned Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent the only issues for determination are whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine the application and whether the Applicants are entitled to the orders sought in the application.
47. On the first issue, the learned submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter for the reason that once a court issues its final judgment in a matter, it becomes functus officio. In this argument, the learned Counsel relied on Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda (Suing On His Own Behalf and on Behalf Of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited) [2014] KECA 600 (KLR) which was cited in support:
“A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it
[...truncated]
1. In the Notice of Motion Application dated 22 nd February 2025, the Applicants seek the following reliefs:
i. Spent.
ii. Spent.
iii. The Court be pleased to find and hold that the Communication/Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent delivered on 12 th February, 2025 on Majority Party and Minority Party in the National Assembly is inconsistent with and violates the Judgement and orders of this Court dated 7 th February, 2025.
iv. The Court be pleased to find and hold that the Communication/Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent delivered on 12 th February, 2025 on Majority Party and Minority Party in the National Assembly constitutes contempt of the Judgement and orders of this Court made on 7 th January, 2025.
v. The Court be pleased to set aside or otherwise quash the Communication/Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent delivered on 12 th February, 2025 on Majority Party and Minority Party in the National Assembly.
vi. The Court be pleased to find and hold that subsequent to the delivery of the Judgement dated 7 th February, 2025, the 4 th Respondent could not lawfully discharge his duties as Speaker of the National Assembly so long as he remained a political leader in Ford-Kenya and in Kenya Kwanza Coalition - the 19 th and 1 st Respondents herein respectively.
vii. The Court do issue summons to Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula, the 4 th Respondent herein, to attend to and appear before the Court on a date to be determined to show cause why he should not be committed to jail or penalized for contempt of court.
viii. The Court be pleased to commit the 4 th Respondent, Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula, to jail for six months or penalized on such terms as the Court may determine, for contempt of court for having willfully, recklessly and nonchalantly disobeyed the orders of this Court contained in the Judgement delivered on 7 th February, 2025.
ix. The Judgement delivered on 7 th February, 2025 be amended at paragraph 508 to include two orders or reliefs to be numbered (v) and (vi) providing as follows:
x. A declaration be issued to declare that the 4th Respondent - Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula - cannot continue to serve as Speaker of the National Assembly unless and until he resigns as the political leader of Ford-Kenya and as leader in the Kenya Kwanza Coalition - the 19 th and 1 st Respondents herein.
xi. An Order of Prohibition be issued to prohibit the 4th Respondent - Hon. Moses Masika Wetangula - from serving as the Speaker of the National Assembly so long as he remains a political leader in Ford-Kenya and the Kenya Kwanza Coalition - the 19 th and 1 st Respondents herein respectively.
xii. The Court be pleased to find and hold that Parliamentary Proceedings in the National Assembly presided over by the 4 th Respondent as long as he remains the leader of Ford-Kenya Party and a principal of Kenya Kwanza Coalition, shall be deemed as unlawful, null and void ab initio.
xiii. The Court be pleased to issue any other or further orders to protect the Rule of Law, the dignity and authority of the Court and to prevent further acts of impropriety on the part of the 3 rd Respondent.
xiv. Costs of this application be borne by the 4 th Respondent personally.
Applicant’s Case
2. The Application is supported by the 1 st Applicant’s affidavit, sworn on even date.
3. The Applicants reiterate that on 7 th February 2025, this Court quashed the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 6 th October 2022.Dissatisfied with the pronouncement, the Respondents filed their respective Notices of Appeal on 7 th , 11 th and 13 th February 2025.Subsequently, the 2 nd , 6 th ,7 th , 8 th and 9 th Respondent filed an application for stay of execution of this Court’s Judgment. Similarly, the 3 rd Respondent filed his application for stay on 14 th February 2025.
4. The 1 st Applicant depones that on 7 th February 2025, the Deputy Speaker of the 2 nd Respondent, Hon. Gladys Shollei on behalf of the 3 rd Respondent wrote to the 5 th Respondent seeking information on membership of the 21 parties represented in the House, including coalition political parties and the dates relevant to the membership. Additionally, information on any variations in the membership of the coalitions and coalition political parties, and the dates of the variations and certified copies of pre-election and post-election coalition agreements relating to the parties and the status of the agreements.
5. According to the Applicant, the 5 th Respondent in a response dated 11 th February 2025 responded as follows:
i. That 5 parties had exited the Azimio La Umoja One Kenya Coalition Party, namely:
a) People's Liberation Party (formerly the National Rainbow Coalition Kenya) on 6 th December 2024.
b) Maendeleo Chap Chap Party on 25 th January, 2024.
c) Devolution Empowerment Party on 11 th April, 2023.
d) United Demoratic Movement on 22 nd November, 2023.
e) Pamoja African Alliance on 27 th February, 2023.
ii. That the Amani National Congress (ANC) was in the process of dissolving the party to collaborate with the United Democratic Alliance.
iii. That the Movement for Development and Growth (MDG) had initiated a process of exiting the Azimio La Umoja One Kenya Coalition but was yet to finalize its exit from the Coalition Political Party.
iv. That as at 11 th February, 2025, the Pamoja African Alliance (PAA), Maendeleo Chap Chap Party (MCCP), United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the National Ordinary People Empowerment Union (NOPEU) are not members of any registered coalition or coalition political party.
6. The Applicant depones that in light of this correspondence, the members of the 2 nd Respondent convened at Parliament on the same day at 2:30 P.M. He contends that on account of reversal of the Ruling dated 6 th October 2022, the 3 rd Respondent was enjoined to inform the 2 nd Respondent that the Court had determined that the 1 st Interested Party was the majority party while the 1 st Respondent the minority party. In the session, the House sought to approve the appointment of Members of the House Business Committee.
7. The Applicant further claims that during the live proceedings, the 3 rd Respondent failed to communicate the re-organization of the leadership of the 2 nd Respondent to allow the 1 st Interested Party to assume the status of Majority Party in accordance with this Court’s Judgment, a matter that was also raised by Hon.Millie Odhiambo during the proceedings.
8. The Applicant contends that in protest vide a letter dated 12 th February 2025, he informed the 3 rd Respondent that he had once again arrogated upon himself the power to determine the question on the majority and minority party notwithstanding this Court’s Judgment. He contends as such that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 constitutes a gross contempt of court and violates the principles of natural justice.
9. Further to this, the 1 st Applicant pleaded that if at all the 3 rd Respondent and Hon. Gladys Shollei, had discovered new evidence showing that the 1 st Respondent is the majority party, then the proper recourse ought to have been to the Court of Appeal. In light of the foregoing, it is asserted that the 3 rd Respondent usurped the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in considering the new evidence obtained from the 5 th Respondent hence the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 is unlawful, null and void ab-initio .
10. Furthermore, the 1 st Applicant postulates that it is necessary that an express declaration is made that the 3 rd Respondent cannot serve as Speaker of the National Assembly as long as he remains a political leader in the 1 st and 19 th Respondent. Additionally, he argues that the impugned Ruling is a threat to constitutional democracy and public interest occasioned by the dual roles of the 3 rd Respondent. In view of the foregoing, it is the Applicants case that the Court allows the Application and grant the reliefs sought.
2 nd Respondent’s Case
11. In rebuttal to the Application, the 2 nd Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the Application dated 3 rd April 2025 on the grounds that:
i. The Application is an attempt to litigate a new cause of action in the present proceedings and seeks orders challenging the Communication by the Rt. Hon Speaker of the National Assembly dated 12 th February, 2025 delivered after the Judgement of this Court, which cause of action can only be litigated through the institution of new proceedings.
ii. This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the orders sought, as the present Application invites the Court to sit on appeal, review, reopen and/or reconsider its Judgment delivered on 7 th February 2025, which rendered this Court functus officio.
iii. The 3 rd and 4 th Respondents enjoy Parliamentary immunity from contempt proceedings and contempt proceedings cannot issue against him in his individual capacity in respect of any actions carried out by him in the exercise of the official functions of his office under Article 117 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017.
iv. In any event, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review its Judgement because the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 6 th , 7 th , 8 th , 9 th Respondents, the 8 th and 9 th Interested Parties have filed and served all parties with Civil Appeal Nos. E096, E098, E103, E105 and E109 all of 2025 , on the very issues that the Applicants' Application seeks to reopen.
12. Further to this, the 2 nd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit by the Clerk, Samuel Njoroge sworn on 11 th July 2025. On the outset, he challenges this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the Application raises new issues which were not addressed by the Court. He underscores that the contents of the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 were not the subject of this Court’s Judgment dated 7 th February 2025. He contends that the Applicants ought to have instituted new proceedings challenging the Ruling to address the same.
13. Further, the 2 nd Respondent contends that, the Applicants are effectively inviting this Court to sit on appeal over its own decision and to review the same. He contends that this Court became functus officio when it pronounced itself in its judgment. He further depones that, although the Applicants now seek additional orders through the Application, the Court should note that the Applicants in the Amended Petition had, among other reliefs, sought an order to quash the election of the 3 rd Respondent. However, the Court only granted five orders and declined to issue the other orders.
14. The 2 nd Respondent depones that there are currently five pending appeals against the cited Judgment, being: Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E096 of 2015, E098 of 2015, E103 of 2015, E105 of 2015 and E109 of 2015 . Considering this, he argues that the Applicant’s recourse lies to the Court of Appeal.
15. The 2 nd Respondent further depones that on 11 th February 2025, the 2 nd Respondent convened the fourth session at 2:30 P.M. The agenda of the meeting was reconstitution of the House Business Committee (HBC), which comprises of members from the majority and minority party. He contends that the function of the HBC is to prepare the agenda for the House. He notes however that following this Court’s Judgment, confusion arose as to which party is the majority party as well as sitting arrangements. At this juncture, Hon. Millie Odhiambo raised a Point of Order noting that the 1 st Interested Party was pronounced as the Majority Party in the cited Judgment.
16. The 2 nd Respondent swears that following this, the House discussed whether the Court, in its findings, designated any party as the Majority Party or any party as the Minority Party in the House, the implications of the Judgment to the continuity of the Business of the House, whether the Judgment rendered the Constitution of the HBC, which is the core business at the first sitting of the House in a new Session, impossible, whether the Judgment rendered the transaction of the Business of the House impracticable and whether the Judgment affects other facets of the House that are determined by the relative majorities and coalition arrangements, such as Deputy Party Leaders, Whips, Chairing and membership of all House Committees, membership of the Parliamentary Service Commission; nominations to the IEBC Selection Panel and to the Commission on Revenue Allocation .
17. In the foregoing, the 3 rd Respondent rendered his Ruling on 12 th February 2025 guiding that the 1 st Respondent is the Majority party and the 1 st Interested Party is the minority party in the House. To this end, Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah moved a motion for the approval of appointment of the members of the HBC.
18. According to the 2 nd Respondent, this Court in its Judgment did not decide the question of which party is the majority and minority Party. He underscores that this created a lacuna which resulted in a standoff between the two parties. Consequently, in order to facilitate continuity of the business of the House which was at a standstill, the 3 rd Respondent issued guidance on the issues raised by the House the previous day, in accordance with his oath and mandate under Article 107 of the Constitution and Standing Order 1(1) of the National Assembly Standing Orders. On this premise, the 2 nd Respondent contends that the 3 rd Respondent cannot be deemed to have been in contempt of this Court’s orders as advanced by the Applicants.
19. That notwithstanding, the 2 nd Respondent emphasizes that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025, was issued in the course of discharge of his constitutional mandate. As such, he stresses that under Article 117 of the Constitution as read with Section 12(2) of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, the 3 rd Respondent is immune from legal proceedings for acts done in the conduct of his mandate.
20. To this end, the 2 nd Respondent depones that the Application is a non-starter, incompetent and an abuse of the Court process hence ought to be dismissed.
3 rd and 4 th Respondent’s Case
21. In opposition to the Application, the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 3 rd April 2025 on the following grounds:
i. Prior to the institution of the contempt proceedings, the Applicants neither extracted nor served a decree/order of the Court. There is, therefore, no Decree extracted and served by the Applicants on the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents to constitute the contempt proceedings.
ii. The contempt proceedings are muddled up with other causes of action, thereby rendering the contempt application incurably defective and a breach of the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents' right to a fair hearing.
iii. This Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court is limited to disobedience of its orders or decrees. There exists no order or decree arising from the judgment of this Court which is capable of enforcement through contempt proceedings.
iv. There is no dispositive order that was made by this Court capable of being violated by the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents or enforcement by this Court in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
v. There is no order of the Court that required the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents to do or refrain from doing anything capable of being enforced through contempt proceedings.
vi. The application for contempt against the 3 rd and 4 th Respondent in discharging his official duties is in direct violation of Article 117 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017.
22. Furthermore, the 4 th Respondent filed his Replying Affidavit sworn on 14 th July 2025. As a preliminary point, he denies disobeying this Court’s Orders hence not guilty of contempt. He swears that the Applicants did not serve him personally with this Court’s decree and neither is a copy of the decree attached to the instant Application. Equally, he points out that the Application does not particularize the specific order allegedly deemed to be breached. On this ground, he argues that the Application is defective and bad in law.
23. Referring to this Court’s Judgment and highlighting the background of the case, the 4 th Respondent outlines that this Court granted prayers d, e, j, k, l and m in the Amended Petition. He emphasizes that the Court under order iv , in the Judgment, declined to grant the other orders sought by the Applicants.
24. Further to this, the 4 th Respondent asserts that in quashing his Ruling dated 6 th October 2022 on leadership of the 2 nd Respondent, the Court contrary to the Applicants claim did not declare any party or coalition of parties as the majority or minority party and neither did it declare any Member of the House as the Leader of the Majority Party or the Leader of the Minority Party. He equally contends that the Court did not issue any orders requiring him to resign as Speaker or from any leadership position in his political parties. On that basis, he maintains that a finding of contempt cannot arise in the absence of a specific order directing such action.
25. He depones that, dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Respondents lodged appeals which are currently pending determination before the Court of Appeal. In his opinion, the instant Application seeks to circumvent these appeals hence is an abuse of the Court process.
26. Recapping the chronology of events in the 2 nd Respondent on 11 th February 2025, he depones that he delivered his Ruling the following day on the issues raised by the House. He depones that his decision was guided by information received from the 5 th Respondent. Ultimately, he resolved that the 1 st Respondent is the majority party and the 1 st Interested Party the minority party, therefore the leadership existing at the end of the last Session remained the leadership of the House.
27. The 4 th Respondent depones that, on the same day, his counsel received a letter from the Applicants demanding his resignation and urging him to enforce this Court’s Judgment, failure to which they would institute contempt of court proceedings. In his opinion, that was a misinterpretation of this Court’s Judgment.
28. The 4 th Respondent stresses that he was mandated by the law to issue guidance following the issues raised by the House, so as to enable the continuity of the 2 nd Respondent functions. Accordingly, he maintains that he acted in good faith. He reiterates that he did not disobey or disregard this Court’s orders.
29. Further to this, the 4 th Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter as a court cannot sit on appeal of its own decision. He points out that such a review can only be done within the confines of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. On this ground, he emphasizes that this Court became functus officio when it rendered its Judgment.
30. In view of the foregoing the 4 th Respondent prays that the Application be dismissed.
1 st , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th Interested Party’s Case
31. In opposition to the Application, the 1 st , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th Interested parties rely on the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 6 th Interested Party on 14 th April 2025.
32. The 6 th Interested Party depones that the 1 st Interested Party has not yet convened a delegates’ conference or invoked its internal procedures for nominating, appointing, and selecting its leadership, namely the Leader of Majority, Deputy Leader of Majority, Majority Chief Whip, and Deputy Majority Chief Whip, as required to comply with this Court’s orders. He notes that the effect of the Court’s orders was to recognize the 1 st Interested Party as the majority party in the 2 nd Respondent.
33. The 6 th Interested Party further deposes that this Court’s judgment is not self-executing , as certain procedural steps must first be undertaken to give it effect, chiefly in light of the fact that the 1 st Interested Party comprises of multiple political parties. In this regard, he contends that it is premature for the Applicants to allege that the 3 rd Respondent is in contempt of the Court’s orders.
34. Additionally, the 6 th Interested Party challenges the Application on the basis that any communication made by a member within the Chambers of the 2 nd Respondent is privileged. On this ground, he argues that the 3 rd Respondent cannot be held in contempt for statements made while the House is in session.
Applicants’ Submissions
35. The Applicants through Kinoti and Company Advocates filed submissions dated 16 th July 2025. Counsel identified the issues for determination as: whether the Ruling of the 3 rd Respondent dated 12 th February, 2025 violates the Judgement delivered on 7 th February, 2024, whether the 3 rd Respondent had jurisdiction to issue the Ruling, whether the 3 rd Respondent's Ruling amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, whether the 4 th Respondent is guilty of contempt of Court, whether the 3 rd Respondent's Ruling should be set aside, whether this Court’s Judgment dated 7 th February 2025 should be amended and whether this Court should declare that its Judgement pronounced the 1 st Interested Party as the Majority Party .
36. On the first issue, Counsel answered in the affirmative. Counsel argued that it is evident that this Court in its pronouncement dated 7 th February 2025 determined that the 1 st Interested Party is the Majority Party. Counsel therefore asserted that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling dated 12 th February 2025 was in breach of this pronouncement. Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent was instead required to implement the Court’s Judgment not substitute it with his own Ruling. Counsel added that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling was anchored on the 5 th Respondent’s correspondence on the status of the parties, which was new information, that had not been availed to the Court during the hearing. Accordingly, Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling amounts to a brazen violation of this Court’s finding in its Judgment.
37. On the second issue, the learned Counsel argued that the 3 rd Respondent did not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned Ruling and for this reason violated Article 108 of the Constitution. Counsel pointed out that the 3 rd Respondent had lodged an appeal against this Court’s Judgment yet he proceeded to issue his own Ruling before the matter was determined. Counsel stressed that by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, the 3 rd Respondent had no jurisdiction to resolve a dispute that by its very nature required adjudication by a judicial body. Further to this, Counsel argued that in making the impugned Ruling, the 3 rd Respondent violated the principles of natural justice, as he is not supposed to be the complainant, prosecutor and judge in own case.
38. Reliance was placed on Liyanange vs. The Queen (P.C.) [1967] 1 A.C. 259 where it was held as follows:
“As has been indicated already, legislation ad hominem which is thus directed to the course of particular proceedings may not always amount to an interference with the functions of the judiciary. But in the present case their Lordships have no doubt that there was such inte1ference; that it was not only the likely but the intended effect of the impugned enactments; and that it is fatal to their validity. The true nature and purpose of these enactments are revealed by their conjoint impact on the speciific proceedings in respect of which they were designed, and they take their colour, in particular, from the alterations they purported to make as to their ultimate objective, the punishment of those convicted. These alterations constituted a grave and deliberate incursion into the judicial sphere. Quite bluntly, their aim was to ensure that the judges in dealing with these particular persons on these particular charges were deprived of their normal discretion as respects appropriate sentences. They were compelled to sentence each offender on conviction to not less than ten years' imprisonment, and compelled to order confiscation of his possessions, even though his part in the conspiracy might have been trivial.”
39. Moving on to the third issue, Counsel submitted that the 3 rd Respondent’s Ruling amounts to usurpation of the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction. This is so because the basis of the impugned Ruling flowed from this Court’s Judgment dated 7 th February 2025. Essentially, the 3 rd Respondent is claimed to be seeking to interpret the said decision with regard to the question which is the majority party and introducing new evidence to come up with his own decision. According to Counsel, the issues raised and new evidence ought to have been presented before the Court of Appeal.
40. In light of foregoing, Counsel argued that the 3 rd Respondent is in contempt of this Court’s order. This is because in spite of this Court’s Judgement, the 3 rd Respondent determined that the 1 st Respondent is the majority party. To buttress this point reliance was placed on Shimmers Plaza Ltd vs. National Bank of Kenya Ltd (2015) eKLR where it was held that:
“We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of Court orders is not optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not… No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour".
41. Further reliance was placed on Johnson Vs Grant (1923) SC 789, Republic v Kenya School of Law & 2 Others ex-parte Juliet Wanjiru Njoroge & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, Cabinet Secretary for Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government Vs Miguna Miguna & 4 others [2018] eKLR and Teachers Service Commission vs. Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others [2013] eKLR .
42. On the fifth issue, it was contended that the 3 rd Respondent’s impugned Ruling ought to be set aside as it was made in contravention of the law. Reliance was placed on Kenya Tea Growers Association Vs Francis Atwoli and 5 Others [2012] eKLR where it was held that:
“I need not cite authority for the proposition that it is of high importance that orders of the courts should be obeyed, willful disobedience to an order of the court is punishable as a contempt of court, and I feel no doubt that such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal .... even if the Defendants thought that the injunction was improperly obtained or too wide in its terms, that provides no excuse for disobeying it. The remedy is to vary or discharge it.”
43. Similar reliance was placed on Kenya Pipeline Company Limited v Glencore Energy (U.K.) Limited [2015] eKLR and Kelvin Roy Omondi & Boniface Mwangi vs. Attorney General and Others HCCHR Pet E269 of 2025 .
44. Moreover, Counsel contended that this Court’s Judgment ought to be amended so as to reflect and address the issues raised in the instant Application. He underscored that Court decisions ought to be clear to the parties and further opined that by the 3 rd Respondent in holding that the 1 st Respondent’s is the majority party made a mockery of this Court’s Judgment which found that the 1 st Interested Party is the majority party.
45. He relied on Stanley Munga Githunguri v Republic 1986 KEHC 44 (KLR) where it was held that:
“These proceedings have put our Constitution on the anvil. They are the subject of considerable notoriety. They will become a milestone in the legal history of Kenya. The country is watching us. Africa is watching us. Other countries outside, some with their own peculiar systems of administering justice, they are all waiting to see how we will decide this case.
We speak in the knowledge that rights cannot be absolute. They must be balanced against other rights and freedoms and the general welfare of the community. We believe we are speaking correctly and not for the sake of being self-laudatory when we say the Republic of Kenya is praised and admired by other peoples and other systems for the independent manner in which justice is dispensed by the Courts of this country.
We also speak knowing that it is our duty to ask ourselves what is the use of having a Constitution if it is not honoured and respected by the people. The people will lose faith in the Constitution if it fails to give effective protection to their fundamental rights. The people know and believe that destroy the rule of law and you destroy justice, thereby also destroying the society. Justice of any other kind would be as shocking as the crime itself. The ideals of justice keep the people buoyant. The Courts of justice must reflect the opinion of the people.”
2 nd Respondent’s Submissions
46. The 2 nd Respondent through their advocate Sandra Nganyi filed submissions dated 14 th July 2025. According to the learned Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent the only issues for determination are whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine the application and whether the Applicants are entitled to the orders sought in the application.
47. On the first issue, the learned submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter for the reason that once a court issues its final judgment in a matter, it becomes functus officio. In this argument, the learned Counsel relied on Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda (Suing On His Own Behalf and on Behalf Of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited) [2014] KECA 600 (KLR) which was cited in support:
“A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it
[...truncated]