Charles Karathe Kiarie & 2 others v Administrator of the Estate of John Wallace Mathare (Deceased) & 2 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court can fix its own clerical mistakes within 14 days.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court corrected three errors in a previous ruling: two wrong dates and a mistaken order dismissing the wrong application. It used Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, which allows the court within 14 days to fix apparent clerical or oversight mistakes. The corrected order now forms part of the ruling. This ensures technical errors don’t affect the case’s outcome.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Supreme Court had the general powers to correct any apparent errors in its judgments, rulings and/or orders.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has the general powers to correct any apparent errors in its judgments, rulings and/or orders.
Yes, the Supreme Court has the general powers under section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act to correct any apparent errors in its judgments, rulings and/or orders.
The court noted that in its ruling of August 4, 2020, there were three inadvertent errors: the date of the supporting affidavit was wrongly stated as May 30, 2017 instead of February 27, 2020; the date of filing of the preliminary objection was wrongly stated as June 20, 2020 instead of June 11, 2020; and the final order (a) erroneously dismissed an application dated May 30, 2017 instead of the correct application dated February 27, 2020. The court invoked section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, which allows the court within 14 days of delivery of its judgment, ruling or order, on its own motion or on application, to correct any oversight or clerical error or other error apparent on such judgment, ruling or order. The court held that this provision clothed it with general powers to correct such errors, and accordingly made the corrections.
Legal principles established
#- Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act gives the court general power to correct apparent errors in its judgments, rulings, or orders.
- The court may act on its own motion or upon application to correct clerical or oversight errors.
- The correction must be made within 14 days of delivery of the original judgment, ruling, or order.
- Only errors 'apparent on the face' – not substantive legal arguments – can be corrected under this provision.
- Once corrected, the amended order becomes part of the original ruling.
- No costs are awarded when the court corrects its own inadvertent errors.
Court orders
#- 1.Paragraph [1] of the ruling dated August 4, 2020 is corrected by deleting the date '30th May, 2017' and inserting therein the date '27th February 2020'.
- 2.Paragraph [10] of the ruling dated August 4, 2020 is corrected by deleting the date '20th of June 2020' and inserting therein the date '11th of June 2020'.
- 3.Paragraph [21] of the ruling dated August 4, 2020 is corrected by deleting order (a) that reads 'The Application dated 30th May 2017 is hereby dismissed' and inserting a new order (a) thus: 'The Application dated 27th February 2020 is hereby dismissed'.
- 4.The Ruling dated August 4, 2020 is accordingly amended, and this Order shall constitute part of the Ruling of the Court.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya (Single Judge)
- Civil Application 4 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act clothes this Court with general powers to correct any apparent errors in its Judgements, Rulings and/or Orders
This Ruling is accordingly amended, and this Order shall constitute part of the Ruling of the Court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Act fast to correct clerical errors
Review every Supreme Court judgment, ruling or order for clerical mistakes. If you spot an apparent error (e.g., wrong date, name, or reference), file an application under Section 21(4) within 14 days. The court can also correct errors on its own motion, but do not delay—once the window closes, you lose this remedy.
Court errors are fixable – quickly
If a Supreme Court decision affecting your business contains an obvious mistake (like a wrong date or misstated order), don’t assume it stands. You can request a correction within 14 days. This keeps your case on track without re-litigating the merits. However, the correction won’t change the actual decision, only the recorded error.
You can ask court to fix obvious mistakes
If you notice a clear error in a Supreme Court ruling about your case (e.g., a date or application wrongly stated), you have 14 days to ask the court to correct it. The court will fix the mistake without changing the outcome. This ensures the record reflects what actually happened. Act promptly to avoid confusion later.
Frequently asked questions
#Can the Supreme Court of Kenya correct mistakes in its own judgments?+
Yes. Under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, the court can correct any apparent error, such as a wrong date or clerical oversight, within 14 days of delivering the judgment.
What kind of errors can be corrected by the Supreme Court under section 21(4) in Kenya?+
Only 'apparent' errors – those obvious from the record, like wrong dates, names, or mistaken orders. The court cannot correct arguments or change the substance of the decision.
How long do you have to ask the Supreme Court to correct a judgment error in Kenya?+
You have 14 days from the date the judgment, ruling, or order was delivered. The court can also act on its own motion within the same period.
Does correcting an error change the outcome of a Supreme Court case in Kenya?+
No. Correction only fixes clerical or oversight mistakes; the court's actual decision remains unchanged. The corrected order simply makes the record accurate.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Njuguna & Partners Advocates v Wood Crest Investment Co Ltd & 2 others [2021] KEELC 406 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 406 (KLR)2 Dec 2021applied
- Mbiyu Mwaura v Thomas Ngarachu Ngugi & 5 others [2021] KEELC 794 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 794 (KLR)25 Nov 2021followed
- Attorney General v Kenya Ports Authority & 7 others[2020] KESC 4 (KLR)11 Dec 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Karathe Kiarie & 2 others v Administrator of the Estate of John Wallace Mathare (Deceased) & 2 others", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application 4 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2020/32/eng@2020-08-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.