Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 1st September, 2021 (in Petition dated 17th October, 2018)· [2021] KEELC 831 (KLR)

Nguruman Limited v Attorney General & another [2021] KEELC 831 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 November 2021
MKMohammed N. Kullow
2,011 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can fix a typo in a judgment, changing a compensation figure from 33 million to 33 billion shillings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 1st September 2021, the Petitioner, Martin Richard Steyn, sought rectification of the judgment delivered by Kullow J on 28th July 2021 in the underlying Petition. The Petitioner contended that the judgment contained clerical and arithmetical errors: the compensation awarded for land parcel L.R. No. Narok/Nguruman/Kamorora/1 was recorded as Kshs. 33,350,000 instead of Kshs. 33,350,000,000, the figure in the petition and in the uncontroverted valuation report of Messrs. COG Consultants Limited. The application was anchored on section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Respondent opposed, arguing the alleged errors were not clerical errors apparent on the face of the record and that the application was an abuse of process seeking to substitute the applicant's intention for that of the court. Kullow J identified the sole issue as whether the judgment of 28th July 2021 could be amended or rectified. Relying on section 99 and authorities including Leonard Mambo Kuria v Ann Wanjiru Mambo, Jersey Evening Post Ltd v Ai Thani, Republic v Attorney General ex-parte Kenya Seed Company, and Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga, the court held that the slip rule permits correction of clerical errors and accidental slips without offending the functus officio doctrine, provided the correction gives effect to the court's intention at the time of judgment and does not go to substance. The court found the errors to be clerical, occasioned by an accidental slip, and consistent with the unchallenged valuation. The motion was allowed and the judgment rectified to award compensation of Kshs. 33,350,000,000, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment of 28th July 2021 could be rectified under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Holding

Yes. The discrepancy between Kshs. 33,350,000 and Kshs. 33,350,000,000 was a clerical error occasioned by an accidental slip, and correcting it gives effect to the court's intention without altering the substance of the judgment.

Reasoning

The court traced the slip rule from section 99 and its common law codification through East African and Kenyan authorities, noting that a court remains competent to correct clerical errors notwithstanding the functus officio doctrine. The uncontroverted valuation report by COG Consultants valued the land at Kshs. 33,350,000,000, and the judgment had awarded compensation based on that valuation. The figure actually recorded was an inadvertent human error, and its correction would not change the substance of the judgment or require the court to revisit its decision.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may at any time correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising from accidental slip or omission.
  • The slip rule may only be applied where the court is satisfied it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time judgment was given.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Judgment of this Honorable Court issued on 28th July, 2021 is hereby rectified to read: a compensation for Land Reference No. Narok/Nguruman/Kamorora/1 for Kshs. 33,350,000,000/= (Thirty-three Billion, Three Hundred and Fifty Million).
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of the Application herein.
  3. 3.Certified copy of the Ruling be availed to both parties.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 99
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 3(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Leonard Mambo Kuria v Ann Wanjiru Mambo
    [2017] eKLR
  • Jersey Evening Post Limited vs. Ai Thani
    [2002] JLR 542 at 550
  • Republic v Attorney General & 15 others, Ex-Parte Kenya Seed Company Limited & 5 others
    [2010] eKLR
  • Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Ltd v The J. Aron Corp & The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
    [2007] 70 NSWLR 411
  • Lakhamshi Brothers Ltd v R. Raja & Sons
    [1966] EA 313
  • Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga Vs. Mansukhlal Jivraj and Others
    [1965] EA 780
  • Steve Onyango v Techspa General Supplies Ltd & 2 others
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nguruman Limited v Attorney General & another [2021] KEELC 831 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 1st September, 2021 (in Petition dated 17th October, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/831/eng@2021-11-08

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