Rotich v Kirui (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Jane Jepkemboi Kirui-Deceased) (Land Case (Originating Summons) E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7713 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Applicant has satisfied the requirements for review of the rulings delivered on 7th November 2024 and 7th April 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the rulings of 7th November 2024 and 7th April 2025 should be reviewed on the ground of a clerical mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
The application for review was allowed. The 7th November 2024 ruling erroneously referred to Nandi/itigo/183 instead of the suit land Nandi/itigo/383, and the suit land has since mutated into two subdivisions, necessitating review and substitution of orders relating to the correct parcels.
The court found that paragraphs 16 and 23 of the 7th November 2024 ruling introduced LR NO. Nandi/itigo/183 in place of the suit land, an error apparent on the face of the record. The suit land has since mutated into the 1st and 2nd subdivisions (Nandi/itigo/833 and 834), as evidenced by official searches, making it necessary in the interest of justice to review both rulings so the orders apply to the correct parcels.
Whether leave to amend the pleadings should be granted
Leave to amend the pleadings, including the Originating Summons, was granted as the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action and amendment was necessary in the interest of justice.
Relying on D.T Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina, the court held that the suit plainly and obviously discloses a reasonable cause of action, rendering the amendment necessary. The Applicant was also granted leave to file and serve additional and/or further documents under Order 11 Rule 3, and directed to file and serve amended pleadings within 14 days.
Legal principles established
#- A clerical mistake or error apparent on the face of a ruling, including the citing of a wrong land parcel number, is a sufficient ground for review under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Where a suit plainly and obviously discloses a reasonable cause of action, amendments to the pleadings will be allowed in the interest of justice
Court orders
#- 1.Review of the ruling/orders issued on 7th November 2024, substituting an order directing maintenance of status quo both on the ground and on the registers of land parcels Nandi/itigo/833 and Nandi/itigo/834 (the 1st and 2nd subdivisions of the suit land, formerly Nandi/itigo/383) pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Review of the ruling/order issued on 7th April 2025, substituting an order directing the County Surveyor, Nandi County, to survey the 1st and 2nd subdivisions of the suit land to ascertain the acreage and occupation thereof, and to compile and file a report in Court
- 3.Leave granted to the Applicant to amend the pleadings, including the Originating Summons dated 1st August 2024
- 4.Leave granted to the Applicant to file and serve additional and/or further documents in compliance with Order 11 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
- 5.Amended pleadings to be filed and served within 14 days, for pre-trial directions on 9th December 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya) and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (review)
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.
Clearly, there is clerical mistake or an error apparent on the rulings of 7th November 2024 and 7th April 2025 touching on the suit land calling for review of the rulings.
It therefore, follows that the present suit is not hopeless as it plainly and obviously discloses reasonable cause of action rendering the amendment sought in the application necessary
In the premises, the notice of application dated 8th August 2025 is not challenged and merited. The same is hereby allowed in terms of orders 4, 5, 6 and 7 sought therein as stated in paragraphs 1 (a) (b) (c) and (d) hereinabove with costs in the cause.
Thus, I direct that the Applicant’s amended pleadings be filed and served within the next 14 from this date for pre-trial directions regarding the suit on 9th December 2025.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling of 7th November 2024 is described as ordering status quo over Nandi/itigo/183 in the grounds, but elsewhere the judgment states the suit land (Nandi/itigo/383) featured in the ruling and that Nandi/itigo/183 was introduced in error; also the prayer (b) refers to 'orders 4, 5, 6 and 7' while the ruling describes prayers (a)-(d), creating numbering inconsistencies
The judgment contains typographical errors, including 'within the next 14 from this date' (omitting 'days') and inconsistent parcel references
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rotich v Kirui (Sued as the legal representative of the Estate of Jane Jepkemboi Kirui-Deceased) (Land Case (Originating Summons) E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7713 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7713/eng@2025-11-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.