Balambala MP Abdi Omar Shurie has suffered a blow after the Supreme Court dismissed his application to have a judgement regarding the administrative units in Garissa County reviewed.
The apex court said it lacked jurisdiction in offering a second appeal over its own judgement, adding that Shurie had disguised his application as a review when it was in fact an appeal, seeking to reopen matters already determined with finality.
“It is therefore disconcerting that the applicant is asking this Court to relitigate issues already determined with finality and issue declarations to that effect. It needs restating that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal over its own judgment,” the judgement delivered on Frida reads.
The judgement was delivered by Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndungu, Issack Lenaola and William Ouko.
“Consequently, we find that this application lacks merit as no such grounds for review have been established and is therefore for dismissal,” the court papers further read.
Shurie had moved to court seeking to have a June 2023, ruling that Abdisamit and Alago are in the Balambala sub-county and not Dadaab reviewed and set aside.
As an alternative, the legislator sought a declaration that Abdisamit, Auliya, Laago are in the Dertu Division in the Daadab Constituency.
The first decision by the Supreme Court was based on a petition by a Garissa resident Abdi Ahmed Abdi who is the first respondent in the current suit.
Abdi had in 2015 challenged the creation of the two units saying they favoured Balambala sub-county.
His prayers were upheld by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, decisions which Shurie challenged and won.
The MP however moved back to the court claiming that the judgement was made based on misrepresentation of the geographical location of the impugned location and sublocations.
He said there were exceptional circumstances of public interest circumstances that warranted the court to review its determination of June 16, 2023.
“….that in the absence of an express order of this Court as to the exact location of the impugned location and sub-locations, confusion lingers amongst the residents of Daadab Constituency and Balambala Constituency.”
The application was however opposed on grounds that it failed to meet the threshold and it sought to re-litigate issues after a judgment had been rendered.
The opposing submission also stated that the mere dissatisfaction of a party with the court’s judgment is not a ground to invoke the court’s power to review its judgment.