Major (Rtd) Joel Kiprono Rop v County Secretary – County Government of Bomet & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court corrected a factual mistake in its judgment but refused to change its outcome, confirming that review only fixes obvious errors, not losses.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of review jurisdiction
Review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record; it does not permit a court to rewrite its judgment
The court framed its review mandate narrowly: it corrected the factual error that a replying affidavit had not been filed, but declined to revisit its substantive findings. Having considered the contents of the replying affidavit, the court held the depositions did not materially alter its conclusions on the issues determined in the judgment, so the findings of fact and law remained untouched.
Effect of the respondents' replying affidavit
The replying affidavit, though inadvertently missing from the file, did not materially alter the judgment's findings
The court examined the depositions in the replying affidavit, in which the 2nd respondent asserted lawful recruitment under Section 59 of the County Governments Act, and concluded that the affidavit did not materially alter the findings in answer to the issues set out in the judgment. The error was corrected, but the substantive findings stood.
Legal principles established
#- The mandate of a court seized with a review application is not to rewrite a judgment already delivered but to correct an error on the face of the record and any consequence emanating from that error
Court orders
#- 1.Correction of the error apparent on the face of the judgment at paragraph 4, acknowledging that a replying affidavit by the respondents had been inadvertently missing from the file at the time of judgment
- 2.Refusal to alter, review or set aside the findings of fact and law under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Judgment
- 3.Dismissal of the application for review of the judgment dated 9/3/2020, with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Review of the court's judgment of 9/3/2020; review jurisdiction under civil procedure law (order references review of error apparent on the face of the record); delivery of ruling online grounded on Article 159(2)(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Major (Rtd) Joel Kiprono Rop v County Secretary – County Government of Bomet & 2 others [2021] KEELRC 2158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Application dated 28/5/2020 (not fully stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2158/eng@2021-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.