Lawyer Charles Kanjama asked the current Supreme Court to review its own decision in the matter of Fredrick Otieno Outa vs Jared Odoyo and three others in petition number 6 of 2014.
The Court made a Novel and weighty decision...
It effectively ruled that it had powers, in exceptional circumstances, to review its own decisions.
I attach excerpts of their argument.
Two key statements
1. There is no injustice that the constitution of Kenya is powerless to redress
2. All courts except the Supreme Court are bound by decisions of The Supreme Court
As I said here, It is NOT over till it's over...
How it works out
Njoki’s dissenting opinion suggests the judgement was based on deceit
Deceit is sufficient ground for SCOK to set aside its decision
The famous decision where SCOK lacked sufficient ground to set aside its decision but they reckoned it was possible
http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/export/131766/pdf aking into account the edicts and values embodied in Chapter 10 of our Constitution, we hold that as a general rule, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decisions, nor to review its decisions, other than in the manner already stated in paragraph (90) above. However, in exercise of its inherent powers, this Court may, upon application by a party, or on its own motion, review, any of its Judgments, Rulings or Orders, in exceptional circumstances, so as to meet the ends of justice. Such circumstances shall be limited to situations where:
(i) the Judgment, Ruling, or Order, is obtained, by fraud or deceit;
(ii) the Judgment, Ruling, or Order, is a nullity, such as, when the Court itself was not competent;
(iii) the Court was misled into giving Judgment, Ruling or Order, under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented thereto;
(iv) the Judgment or Ruling, was rendered, on the basis of a repealed law, or as a result of , a deliberately concealed statutory provision.