Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others (Petition (Application) E033 of 2023) [2026] KESC 15 (KLR) (30 January 2026) (Ruling)

Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Ltd & 5 others (Petition (Application) E033 of 2023) [2026] KESC 15 (KLR) (30 January 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KESC 15 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Supreme Court of Kenya Petition (Application) E033 of 2023 MK Koome, CJ & P, PM Mwilu, DCJ & VP, SC Wanjala, N Ndungu & I Lenaola, SCJJ January 30, 2026 Between Harcharan Singh Sehmi 1st Decree holder Jaswarana Sehmi 2nd Decree holder and Tarabana Company Ltd Judgment debtor and Rospatech Limited 1st Respondent Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi 2nd Respondent National Land Commission 3rd Respondent Inspector General of Police 4th Respondent Attorney General 5th Respondent (Being an application for enlargement of time to comply with the directions of this Honourable Court in the Judgment delivered on 11th April 2025 [Civil Appeal 463 of 2019](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/76/eng@2021-10-08), [Environment & Land Case 1311 of 2014](http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/179621/) ) Ruling _Representation:_ Ms. Ndirangu and Mr. Mumu for the appellants(Igeria & Ngugi Advocates)Mr. Charles Kiri Thube, acting in person for the 1st respondent 1.Upon Perusing the Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 and filed on 2nd October 2025, seeking an extension of the six-month demolition period for structures on LR No. 209/2759/9 (the suit property) to nine months; additional time for the 1st respondent to remove goods and materials from the suit property within the same nine-month period; and that the costs of the application be in the cause; and 2.Upon Examining the grounds on the face of the application, the supporting and further affidavits both sworn by Charles Kiri Thube on 29th September 2025 and 16th October 2025 respectively, as well as the further submissions dated 16th October 2025, wherein, on the basis of Section 3A of the [Supreme Court Act](/akn/ke/act/2011/7), the 1st respondent urges the Court to grant an enlargement of time to enable him comply with the Orders issued by this Court on 11th April 2025; explains that he is the sole director of the 1st respondent and that prior to the delivery of the Court’s Judgment on 11th April 2025, he was diagnosed with renal failure, which has hindered his ability to comply with the Court’s orders; seeks an additional three months to comply and contends that granting such an extension will not prejudice the appellants/decree holders; and 3.Upon Considering The appellants’ Grounds of Objection and submissions, both dated 9th October 2025, as well as the replying affidavit sworn by the 1st appellant on 23rd October 2025, contending that: this Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant application having become functus officio, upon delivery of its judgment on 11th April 2025; Section 23A of the [Supreme Court Rules](/akn/ke/act/ln/2020/101/eng@2025-08-20), cited by the 1st respondent, only permits stay of proceedings or execution of decisions from the Court of Appeal, not of the Supreme Court’s own judgments, as affirmed in [Non- Governmental Organizations Coordination Board v EG & 5 others](/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/78) [2023] KESC 78 (KLR); the application is frivolous, defective, grossly incompetent and constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court (citing [Njihia v Kimani & another](/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2015/19) [2015] KESC 19 (KLR), in support thereof); the application improperly invokes the provisions of the [Civil Procedure Act](/akn/ke/act/1924/3) and [Rules](/akn/ke/act/ln/2010/151/eng@2022-12-31), which do not apply to this Court; the applicant has failed to comply with Rule 18(5) of the [Supreme Court Rules](/akn/ke/act/ln/2020/101/eng@2025-08-20) concerning the filing and service of a Notice of change of representation; and 4.Further Considering the appellants’ submissions to the effect that: the 1st respondent has not offered a credible explanation for its failure to comply with the Court’s orders, since the ill health of a single director, cannot be equated with the incapacity of a corporate entity as a whole; the application was filed after an inordinate and unjustified delay; granting the orders sought would deprive them of the timely enjoyment of the fruits of the Judgment; and 5.Noting that by its Judgment delivered on 11th April 2025, this Court directed the 1st respondent to remove and demolish the structures and developments erected by the 1st respondent on the suit property within six months from the date of the Judgment, under the supervision of the 5th respondent; and 6.Guided by the decision in [Odinga v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others](/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2013/8) [2013] KESC 8 (KLR), in which this Court referred to the case of [Jersey Evening Post Limited v A Thani](https://www.trusts.it/admincp/UploadedPDF/201006291706400.jJerseyEveningPostLtdV.AlThaniandFourOhers%5B2002JLR542%5D.pdf) [2002] JLR 542 at pg 550 wherein it was stated that:“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 prevent a judicial change of mind even when a decision has been communicated to the parties. Proceedings are only fully concluded, and the court functus, when its judgment or order has been perfected. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision; any challenge to its ruling on adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available.” 7.Reaffirming the Court’s pronouncement in [Shollei v Judicial Service Commission & another](/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/8) [2023] KESC 8 (KLR), to the effect that once the Supreme Court has conclusively determined a matter, it becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain any subsequent application seeking enlargement of time or variation of the directions issued; and 8.Having Considered the totality of the pleadings, affidavits, and rival arguments by the parties on both sides, we opine as follows:i.This Court conclusively determined the issues in this matter vide its judgment delivered on 11th April 2025 and is therefore, functus officio.ii.The Court’s judgment brought the matter to a final close, and the parties remain bound by the orders issued therein, which require strict compliance.iii.Ultimately, this Court lacks jurisdiction to extend the timeline granted to the 1st respondent for compliance with its judgment delivered on 11th April 2025. 9.Accordingly, we make the following orders:i.The Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025 and filed on 2nd October 2025 is hereby dismissed.ii.There shall be no orders as to costs.It is so ordered. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026.****............................................****M. K. KOOME****CHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT****............................................****P. M. MWILU****DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT****............................................****S. C. WANJALA****JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT****............................................****NJOKI NDUNGU****JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT****............................................****I. LENAOLA****JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT****............................................****W. OUKO****JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** I certify that this is a true copy of the original**REGISTRAR** ,**SUPREME COURT OF KENYA** *[LR]: Land Reference