Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006· [2007] KECA 55 (KLR)

Mua Park Investment Limited v Kenya National Assurance Company Limited (in Liquidation)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 April 2007
EGE. M. GithinjiJOJ. W. Onyango OtienoWDW. S. Deverell
348 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it can fix accidental clerical errors—like a wrong land number—in its own rulings and orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Githinji, Onyango Otieno and Deverell, JJ A) delivered on 27th April 2007 in Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006. The application, brought under rules 1(3), 35(1), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, sought correction of a clerical error arising from an accidental slip in the Court's own ruling dated 5th May 2006 and the formal order issued on 19th June 2006. The error concerned the description of the land in question: the documents erroneously referred to L.R. No. 209/11214 when the correct description was L.R. No. 209/11241. The underlying matter was an intended appeal from a ruling and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Courts (Lady Justice Mary Kasango) dated 16th November 2005 in H.C.C.C. No. 355 of 2005, in which an injunction pending appeal was in issue. Both the applicant, Mua Park Investment Limited, and the respondent, Kenya National Assurance Company Limited (In Liquidation), agreed before the Court that the correction was required and that each party should bear its own costs of the application. The Court accordingly ordered that the L.R. number in Order 1 of the ruling and in Order 2 of the formal order be corrected to read L.R. Number 209/11241 instead of L.R. Number 209/11214, and that each party bear its own costs. The ruling does not decide the merits of any substantive dispute; it is a purely administrative slip-rule rectification.

Key legal issues

#
01

Correction of a clerical error in a prior ruling and order of the Court

Holding

The Court corrected the erroneous description L.R. No. 209/11214 in the Ruling of 5th May 2006 and the formal Order of 19th June 2006 to read L.R. No. 209/11241, the parties having agreed that the correction was required.

Reasoning

The application was brought under the slip-rule provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant and respondent both agreed before the Court that the land parcel description contained an accidental slip and that the correction was required. On that common position, the Court exercised its power to rectify the clerical error in the two documents without any contested hearing, and by consent as to costs each party bore its own costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court of Appeal may, under rules 1(3), 35(1), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, correct a clerical error arising from an accidental slip in its own ruling and the formal order issued therefrom, and where both parties agree the correction may be made without contest.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The L.R. Number in Order Number 1 of the Ruling of the Court in Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006 dated 5th May 2006 be corrected to read 'L.R. Number 209/11241' instead of L.R. Number 209/11214
  2. 2.The L.R. Number in Order No. 2 on page 2 of the formal Order issued at Nairobi on 19th June 2006 be corrected to read 'L.R. Number 209/11241' instead of L.R. Number 209/11214
  3. 3.Each party shall bear its own costs of the application
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Courts
H.C.C.C. No. 355 of 2005
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 1(3), 35(1), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules (slip rule / correction of clerical errors)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mua Park Investment Limited v Kenya National Assurance Company Limited (in Liquidation)", Case Analysis (2007). Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/55/eng@2007-04-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.