Mwangangi & Company Advocates v Mbaabu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8170 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court corrected its own arithmetic errors in a legal fees ruling, finalising the bill at Kshs. 1,345,464.15 and letting both sides avoid paying costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether arithmetical errors existed in the ruling of 10/07/2024 regarding the omitted sums awarded by the taxing officer on unchallenged items
Yes. The court computed the omitted items at Kshs. 137,880/= plus 16% VAT of Kshs. 22,060/=, totalling Kshs. 159,940/=, and agreed with the advocate that an arithmetical error occurred
The court reverted to the record and recomputed each head of the taxing officer's decision on items not challenged in the reference: Kshs. 123,500/=, 750, 180, 350, 300, 300, 12,500 and 325, totalling Kshs. 137,880/=. Adding 16% VAT of Kshs. 22,060/= produced an omission of Kshs. 159,940/=, which was rectifiable as an accidental slip without altering the substance of the ruling.
Whether the final taxed total of Kshs. 1,264,669/= was itself arithmetically wrong
Yes. The client's computation that paragraph 50 totalled Kshs. 1,185,523.59/= rather than Kshs. 1,264,669/= was correct, an error of Kshs. 79,145.41/=, and the court concurred
The court found the client's arithmetic unassailable on this head; the figure of Kshs. 1,264,669/= did not follow from the component sums in paragraph 50. Both motions were therefore held justified and paragraph 50 was rewritten to incorporate all corrections, producing a final taxed figure of Kshs. 1,345,464.15/= after adding back the omitted items and VAT and deducting the deposit of Kshs. 838,676.65/.
Legal principles established
#- The slip rule permits correction only of errors apparent on the face of a judgment, ruling or order, without changing the substance of the decision or sitting on appeal over one's own judgment
- Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act empower the court, at any time and of its own motion or on application, to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling dated 10/07/2024 is reviewed and, in particular, paragraph 50, which is to be substituted with the corrected wording
- 2.The advocate/client's bill of costs dated 28th May 2021 is taxed in the sum of Kshs. 1,345,464.15/= after correcting the arithmetical errors
- 3.No orders as to costs
- 4.File is effectively marked as closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act (slip rule)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwangangi & Company Advocates v Mbaabu (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8170 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (related matter cited as Machakos Misc. Application No. E022 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8170/eng@2025-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.