Hanspal (Suing as the son and legal representative of the Late Inderjit Singh Hanspal) v Hanspal & another (Being sued as the daughters and legal representatives of the Estate of the Late Davinder Singh Hanspal)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court corrected a company name in its judgment but refused to change the rent figure, ruling that deliberate decisions can only be challenged on appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged misstatement of the 2013 monthly rent in the judgment is a clerical or arithmetical mistake correctable under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act
No - the figure adopted by the court was a conscious decision based on its appreciation of PW3's evidence, not an accidental slip; the correct figure per the plaintiff appears only in the valuation report
Section 99 permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors from accidental slip or omission. The court relied on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, which requires the error to be self-evident and bars review of contested issues or erroneous conclusions of law. PW3 in cross-examination gave a monthly rent figure, and the judgment expressly recorded the figure it took as rent payable. Adopting that figure was a judicial determination, not a typographical slip, so the remedy lies on appeal, not review.
Whether the reference to 'Alcon International Limited' in paragraph 90 of the judgment is a clerical error
Yes - the court corrected paragraph 90 line 4 to read Alcon Holdings Limited instead of Alcon International Limited
Unlike the rent figures, the misnaming of the company in paragraph 90 was accepted as a clear clerical error capable of correction under section 99, and the court exercised its power to correct it without disturbing the substantive findings.
Legal principles established
#- A correction under section 99 CPA lies only for clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips, not for a conscious judicial decision on the evidence, which can only be challenged on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.Paragraph 90 of the judgment is corrected in line 4 to read Alcon Holdings Limited instead of Alcon International Limited
- 2.The notice of motion dated 27th June 2022 is otherwise dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hanspal (Suing as the son and legal representative of the Late Inderjit Singh Hanspal) v Hanspal & another (Being sued as the daughters and legal representatives of the Estate of the Late Davinder Singh Hanspal)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 1218 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18512/eng@2023-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.