Flynote
Junctus officio, Inherent Powers of Court, Requirements for Reopening Dismissed Appeals, Finality of Judgments
Case Summary
Brief facts
The Respondents sued the Appellant in the Chief Magistrate’s Court, alleging he was a trespasser on their kibanja (land interest). The trial magistrate found the Appellant/Defendant was a trespasser but only ordered him to pay compensation, not to be evicted. Dissatisfied, the Respondents appealed to the High Court.
At the High Court, the appeal was initially dismissed because both parties failed to file written submissions on time. However, upon later discovering a letter from the Respondents’ counsel requesting a time extension, the High Court judge, on his own volition, reinstated the appeal without a formal application, heard it based only on the Respondents’ submissions, and issued a new judgment ordering a new valuation for compensation and awarding general damages.
Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the High Court judge was functus officio after dismissing the appeal and had no power to reinstate and decide it without a proper procedure.
Summary of the Court of Appeal Judgment
The Court of Appeal allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court finding that the appellate judge had acted without jurisdiction. The High Court had initially dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with filing deadlines, but later reinstated and decided it sua sponte without a formal application for reinstatement. The Court of Appeal held that the judge became functus officio upon dismissal and could not lawfully revive or determine the appeal without a proper procedural application, rendering the subsequent judgment null and void.
The Court emphasized the importance of finality and procedural integrity in judicial proceedings, noting that a judge cannot unilaterally revisit a dismissed matter.
“..If a judge is at liberty to alter or change their decision after pronouncing it, it would not only open a Pandora’s box where by Judges and magistrates will freely alter their initial pronounced decisions, but would also lead to intolerable uncertainty and disarray…..” Per Hon. Justice Stella Alibateese