Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2019] KEELC 1074 (KLR)

Peter Chege Kiarie v George Matu & 3 others (Being sued as the Chairman, secretary, treasurer and Organizing Secretary respectively of Versityville Association) [2019] KEELC 1074 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 October 2019
3,354 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court allowed a late appeal filing after a short, explained delay but refused to correct a judgment to award unquantified damages or stay execution before an appeal was on record.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Thika (L. Gacheru J) determined two applications arising from a judgment of Ong'ondo J delivered on 29th November 2018 in a land dispute over Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/21, where the trial court had found the property reserved for public use and held for the residents of the Versityville Resident Association. The Defendants sought correction of an accidental slip under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, asking that the judgment's reference to 'orders (a) and (d)' of their counterclaim be replaced with 'prayers (a) to (d)'. The court held that although it had jurisdiction under Section 99, the correction was not merited: granting prayers (a) to (d) would have included a claim for general damages which the trial court would not have awarded without quantifying it, so the correction would not give effect to the court's intention. That application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought leave to appeal out of time, deeming of the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal as filed, and a stay of execution. Citing Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the court's equal status with the High Court, the court found the 7-day delay explained (counsel's compassionate leave and delayed client instructions) and not inordinate, and granted leave to appeal out of time. However, it refused to deem the Memorandum of Appeal as filed, holding that this Court is not the proper registry and would act ultra vires; and it refused the stay, holding that with no appeal on record there was nothing to anchor a stay under Order 42 Rule 6(1). The Plaintiff's application was allowed in terms of prayer (a) only, with each party bearing its own costs; the Defendants' application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Correction of a clerical error or accidental slip in a judgment under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The application fails; the court could not be satisfied that replacing 'orders (a) and (d)' with 'prayers (a) to (d)' would give effect to the court's intention, since that would award unassessed general damages.

Reasoning

Section 99 vests power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission. The court perused the judgment and noted that although the trial judge found the Defendants had proved their case, only two of five counterclaim prayers were granted. Prayer (c) was for general damages, which the court would not have awarded in a vacuum without quantifying them. Correction would therefore not give effect to the judgment's intention, per the Omenye test.

p. 3
02

Extension of time to appeal out of time

Holding

Granted. The delay of about 7 days was explained (counsel's compassionate leave and delayed client instructions) and was not inordinate.

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act empowers the court, having equal status with the High Court, to extend time. Applying the Stanley Kahoro Mwangi principles, the applicant must show good cause for the whole period of delay. Counsel's explanation was accepted absent contrary evidence, and the short delay caused no injustice to the Defendants.

p. 4
03

Deeming the Notice and Memorandum of Appeal as duly filed

Holding

Refused; this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Memorandum of Appeal and the filing prerequisites were unmet.

Reasoning

The Memorandum of Appeal belongs to the proper registry (the appellate court) and must be presented there, with requisite fees paid and the document stamped. Ordering deeming in this Court would be acting ultra vires, and the documents had not met those conditions.

p. 4
04

Stay of execution pending intended appeal

Holding

Refused; without an appeal on record there is nothing upon which stay under Order 42 can be anchored.

Reasoning

Relying on Abubaker Mohamed Al-Amin v Firdaus Siwa Somo and the cited Meoli J observation, the existence of an appeal is a condition precedent to stay under Order 42 Rule 6(1). Since the Memorandum of Appeal could not be deemed filed and no appeal was on record, the stay prayer was premature and disallowed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to correct errors under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is exercised only where the court is satisfied it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given
  • A court with equal status to the High Court, such as the ELC, has jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to extend time for giving notice of appeal
  • What constitutes inordinate delay has no precise measure and depends on the circumstances of each case
  • The existence of an appeal on record is a condition precedent to the granting of a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the Plaintiff/Applicant to appeal out of time against the Judgment delivered on 29th November 2018 (prayer (a) only of the Notice of Motion dated 14th January 2019)
  2. 2.The prayer that the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal be deemed as duly filed and served is disallowed
  3. 3.The prayer for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal is disallowed
  4. 4.The Defendants' application dated 4th March 2019 to correct the judgment under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed
  5. 5.Each party to bear its own costs of the Plaintiff's application; the Defendants' application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 99
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 7, CAP 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1), Order 42 Rule 6(6), Order 42 Rule 1
  • Constitution of Kenya2010 (construction of 'High Court' to include ELC)

Cases cited (6)

  • Dominic Alois George Omenye t/a Omenye & Associates Vs Prime Bank Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • Edward Njane Nganga & Another Vs Damaris Wanjiku Kamau & Another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Stanley Kahoro Mwangi & 2 Others Vs Kanyamwi Trading Company Limited
    (2015) eKLR
  • Mwangi. S. Kimenyi Vs Attorney General & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Abubaker Mohamed Al-Amin Vs Firdaus Siwa Somo
    [2018] eKLR
  • Rosalindi Wanjiku Macharia vs. James Kiingati Kimani (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Martin Muiruri (Deceased))
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, CAP 9; Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; the ELC's equal status with the High Court under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Chege Kiarie v George Matu & 3 others (Being sued as the Chairman, secretary, treasurer and Organizing Secretary respectively of Versityville Association) [2019] KEELC 1074 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1074/eng@2019-10-11

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