When Does a Court Become Functus Officio?
In litigation, finality of decisions is a cornerstone of legal certainty. But when exactly is a court said to have discharged its duties and lost jurisdiction over a matter? This question finds its answer in the doctrine of functus officio—a Latin term meaning "having performed one’s office."
Understanding the Doctrine
The doctrine of functus officio is a procedural safeguard rooted in the principle of finality. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.), a body becomes functus officio when it has fully discharged its mandate and has no further authority over the matter. The principle ensures that once a court renders a final judgment, it cannot revisit the merits of the case. However, not every post-judgment engagement is barred.
In Raila Odinga v IEBC & 3 Others [2013] eKLR, the Supreme Court affirmed that 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.” It added that a court is functus only when the judgment has been perfected—meaning that the order has been formally drawn, issued, entered, and finalized.
This interpretation was echoed in Jersey Evening Post Ltd v Al Thani [2002] JLR 542, and subsequently adopted in Kenya’s jurisprudence.
When Finality Is Not Yet Achieved
The Court of Appeal in Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (as Liquidator of Dubai Bank Kenya Limited) v Rapid Communications Limited & 2 others [2019] eKLR made a critical clarification: the doctrine does not apply where an order has not been perfected. It ruled that in such circumstances, the court retains jurisdiction and is not functus officio.
This position is particularly relevant in cases involving execution of decrees. Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that all questions relating to the execution of a decree must be determined by the court that issued it, not by a new suit in a different forum. This principle was emphasized in Jeremiah M’njogu v Martha Naitore M’murithi & 5 others [2021] eKLR and Kennedy Ooko Jacob v John Abich Ochanda [2021] eKLR.
Conclusion
The doctrine of functus officio upholds the finality of judicial decisions, but it does not bar courts from supervising the implementation of their own orders. Where the judgment remains unperfected—due to non-execution or active frustration—courts retain jurisdiction to give effect to their decisions. Litigants must therefore resist premature objections grounded on functus officio where substantive orders remain unenforced.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
