Estate of Achilla (Represented by Erick Obina & Akunaya Janet) v Estate of Aradi (Represented by John Agulinda & Mudii Fanuel Aradi) (Environment and Land Case 47 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4753 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court fixed a small typing error in a land judgment without changing the result, but paused enforcement of the judgment unless KShs 4 million is deposited.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the judgment contains an error which can be amended under the 'slip rule'.
- 2.Whether the Defendant has satisfied the conditions for the grant of stay of execution.
- 3.Who to bear the costs of either or both of the applications.
Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment contains an error amendable under the slip rule (Section 99, Civil Procedure Act).
Yes. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of the final orders were to be amended to read 'part of LR. No. 8815' instead of 'LR. No. 8815', as read in context the Court's intention was clear and both parties' affidavits agreed the suit land was part of LR. No. 8815.
The court applied Section 99 and the Supreme Court's decision in Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello, holding that a correctable error is one that does not change the reasoning or outcome. Reading the impugned paragraphs with the body of the judgment, the intention was that the land revert as part of LR. No. 8815, since both parties accepted the disputed land was only part of that parcel. The correction did not alter the substance of the decision.
Whether the Defendant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6.
Yes. The application was made without unreasonable delay, substantial loss was likely, and the applicants offered security; stay was granted conditioned on a deposit of KShs 4,000,000 within 21 days, failing which execution to proceed.
The court found that filing a Notice of Appeal satisfies the requirement that an appeal be preferred, citing Rule 2(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act/Court of Appeal Rules and Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates v National Bank of Kenya. Drawing on Halal v Thornton & Turpin and Hassan Guyo Wakalo v Straman EA Ltd, it required substantial loss, delay-free application and security. All three were met, with security fixed at KShs 4 million.
Legal principles established
#- The slip rule permits correction only of errors apparent on the face of the record that do not change the substance of the judgment or the court's intention; it confers no power to sit on appeal over or substantially review the court's own judgment.
- For appeals to the Court of Appeal, filing a Notice of Appeal signals that an appeal has been preferred, and the three conditions for stay of execution are substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 8th June 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs; paragraphs (d) and (e) in the final orders in the Judgment read on 27th April 2024 are to be amended forthwith to read 'part of LR. No. 8815' instead of 'LR. No. 8815'.
- 2.The application dated 22nd May 2024 is allowed by way of a stay of execution of the decree, on condition that the Applicants deposit in a joint interest-earning account to be opened in the names of the parties' advocates' law firms a sum of Kenya Shillings four million (KShs 4,000,000/=) within twenty-one (21) days, in default execution to proceed; the Applicant to initiate the process.
- 3.Costs of the stay application to the Respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Unconditional stay of execution ( Respondent sought security of KShs 5,000,000)
The court granted stay but fixed security at KShs 4,000,000 rather than the KShs 5,000,000 urged by the Respondents.
Costs
No order as to costs on the Plaintiffs' application dated 8th June 2024; costs of the Defendants' application dated 22nd May 2024 to the Respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the slip rule does not confer upon a court any jurisdiction or powers to sit on appeal over its own judgment, or, to extensively review such judgment as to substantially alter it.
the application dated 8th June 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs. Paragraphs (d) and (e) in the final orders in the Judgment read on 27th April 2024 are to be amended forthwith accordingly.
the Application dated 22nd May 2024 is allowed by way of an order being issued for the stay of execution of the decree herein, granted, on condition that the Applicants deposit in a joint interest earning account to be opened in the names of the parties’ advocates’ law firms, a sum of Kenya Shillings four million (KShs 4,000,000/=) within the next twenty one (21) days, in default execution to proceed.
Firstly, the applicant must establish a suficient cause; secondly the court must be satisfied that substantial loss would ensue from a refusal to grant a stay; and thirdly the applicant must furnish security.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the delivery of the judgment: '27th April 2024' at the opening, but '29th April 2024' in the Defendant's pleadings and the stay application, and the correction application is once referred to as dated '22/05/2025' where 22/05/2024 is plainly meant.
The court does not state the case number, its station, or expressly identify itself as the Environment and Land Court; the court is inferred from the subject matter.
The Defendant's written submissions are described as 'undated and unsigned', which the court notes it will consider in its analysis.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Estate of Achilla (Represented by Erick Obina & Akunaya Janet) v Estate of Aradi (Represented by John Agulinda & Mudii Fanuel Aradi) (Environment and Land Case 47 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4753 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not_stated_in_judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4753/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.