Masters Kenya Limited & another v Desert Runners Services Company Limited & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 916 of 2013) [2024] KEELC 921 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court can fix a typo in its judgment, but it won't rewrite its decisions — if you want a different outcome, you must appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for a temporary injunction was met
The temporary injunction was refused because no pending proceedings existed to which it could attach.
The court noted that the injunctive orders sought were not anchored on any live proceedings, as judgment had already been delivered on 19th September 2023. With no substratum of pending proceedings, there was no basis upon which interim injunctive relief could issue to restrain execution of the decree.
Whether there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under section 80 CPA and Order 45 rule 1
No error apparent on the face of the record existed; the passage cited by the applicant was a finding, and the court declined to insert Kshs 8,000,000/- into Order 3 of the judgment.
The court re-read its judgment of 19th September 2023 and found that paragraph 78 recorded findings on the loan of Kshs 7,000,000/- and the 1st Defendant's failure to prove its cross-petition. Those were judicial findings, not self-evident errors. Relying on Nyamogo & Nyamogo v Kogo, the court held that an erroneous view of evidence or law is a ground of appeal, not review. Only the misnomer of the 1st and 3rd Defendants warranted correction.
Whether the names of the 1st and 3rd Defendants in the judgment should be corrected
The court corrected the 1st Defendant's name to Desert Runner Services Company Limited and the 3rd Defendant's name to Silvia Alivista Litunda.
The court identified the citation of the parties' names as the only error apparent on the face of the record and proceeded to correct them sua sponte to avoid difficulties during execution, granting these heads of the application while declining all others.
Legal principles established
#- An error or mistake apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument; an erroneous view of evidence or law is a ground of appeal, not of review.
- A court on review cannot superimpose a monetary award that was not part of its final orders where the judgment reflects a considered finding rather than an error.
Court orders
#- 1.The name of the 1st Defendant appearing in the judgment is corrected to read Desert Runner Services Company Limited and not Desert Runners Services (K) Limited.
- 2.The name of the 3rd Defendant as appearing in the judgment is corrected to read Silvia Alivista Litunda instead of Silvia Litunda.
- 3.All the other reliefs not expressly granted are declined.
- 4.Each party to bear own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 and rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction); inherent power to correct names in its own judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Masters Kenya Limited & another v Desert Runners Services Company Limited & 5 others (Environment & Land Case 916 of 2013) [2024] KEELC 921 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 20th November, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/921/eng@2024-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.