Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment & Land Case 220 of 2008· [2023] KEELC 16091 (KLR)

Warab Limited v Machakos County Government & 9 others

Environment and Land Court
15 March 2023
COChristine Ochieng
998 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court corrected a wrong survey plan number in its judgment, confirming obvious clerical errors can be fixed through review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos on the defendants' Notice of Motion dated March 29, 2022 seeking review of the court's judgment of May 8, 2020, which had dismissed the plaintiff's case. The 8th Defendant, Peter Mumo Maingi, swore a supporting affidavit deposing that the judgment contained an error apparent on its face: at paragraphs 24 and 40 the court quoted F/R No 220/173 instead of the correct F/R No 210/124. The plaintiff, though duly served, filed no response. The court framed a single issue: whether the judgment should be reviewed as sought. Relying on Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and applying the Court of Appeal's decision in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, the court held that a review may be granted to correct an apparent error that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument. Noting that the rest of the judgment and the defendants' submissions and exhibits referred to F/R No 210/124, the court found the wrong F/R number to be a self-evident error apparent on the face of the record and held the review warranted. The application was allowed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed warranting review

Holding

Yes - the judgment quoted the wrong F/R number (220/173 instead of 210/124) in paragraphs 24 and 40, a self-evident error requiring correction

Reasoning

The court compared the impugned judgment with the rest of the record and the defendants' submissions and exhibits, which consistently referred to F/R No 210/124. The application was unopposed and the averments uncontroverted. Applying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the National Bank of Kenya v Ndungu Njau test, the court found the error self-evident, requiring no elaborate argument, and held review warranted.

Legal principles established

#
  • Review may be granted to correct an apparent error or omission that is self-evident and requires no elaborate argument to establish

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated March 29, 2022 is allowed; the Judgment of May 8, 2020 is reviewed to include the correct survey Plan number F/R No 210/124 in place of F/R No 220/173 in paragraphs 24 and 40
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau
    Civil Appeal No 211 of 1996

    Review may be granted to correct a self-evident apparent error or omission; misconstruing a statute is not a ground for review

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Warab Limited v Machakos County Government & 9 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 220 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16091/eng@2023-03-15

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