Olang v County Government of Kwale & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 165 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 7092 (KLR)

The court acknowledged a typographical error in the date of the preliminary objection but held it was a clerical mistake correctable under Sections 99 and 100. Substantively, the court had already decided the objection: it found the gist of the suit was compensation for compulsory acquisition, a matter within ELC jurisdiction under Section 13 of the ELC Act. Thus no error apparent on the face of the record justified review.

The applicant relied on the court's later ruling upholding a similar preliminary objection in a related suit. The court held it was not its duty to compare findings across matters, that it is functus officio in the other suit, and that the subject matters differed - the present suit's gist was compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, within the court's jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.

The applicant's real complaint was that the court wrongly found it had jurisdiction. The court held that examining whether it applied itself correctly on jurisdiction would require re-evaluating evidence, akin to sitting on appeal over its own decision, which the law does not permit. It adopted the Pancras T. Swai principle that faulting a decision on a point of law is a ground for appeal, not review.