Kahiga (Suing in her capacity as a personal representative of the Estate of Meri Njatha Alias Alexander Kagiri Meri) v Kimani & 16 others (Environment & Land Case 38 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1296 (KLR)

MARTIN CHEGE MURIITHI ..................................................... 15TH DEFENDANT THE LAND REGISTRAR MURANG’A ..................................... 16TH DEFENDANT THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........................ 17TH DEFENDANT RULING 1. This ruling is on the notice of motion dated 12-6-2024. The motion which is by the 5th to 15th Defendants is brought under sections 1A, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 9 rule 9, 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The motion seeks the following orders. i. That the firm of M/s Ngari and Kabura Advocates be and is hereby granted leave to come on record for the Applicants. ii. That the Judgment of this court dated 26-1-2023 be reviewed. iii. That the costs of this application be provided for. 2. The motion is based on eight grounds and is supported by an afidavit sworn by Martin Chege Muriithi, the 15th Defendant, dated 12th June 2024. Annexed to the afidavit, there is the notice for indemnity issued to the Nelson Kimemia Njenga, Evans Irungu Mutugi and David Ngari Mwangi who are sued as trustees of Philadelphia Investment Group. The notice has various sums sought as indemnity. Other annexures include a copy of the valuation report by upcountry valuers. 3. The gist of the motion is as follows. Firstly, the Plaintifi filed this suit seeking to be declared the owner of the suit land among other orders. Secondly, the 5th to 15th Defendants stated in their defence that they bought the suit land from Philadelphia Investment Group. Thirdly, they sought indemnity against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants vide a notice dated 3-6-2020 for compensation of the suit land as per the valuation report on record. Fourthly, at page 29 of the judgment the court granted the Applicants the indemnity sought without stating the actual figures awarded. As a result, the judgment on record remains ambiguous making the filing of this motion necessary so that the court may now state the actual amounts awarded to each of the Defendants. 4. The motion though served is unopposed by any of the Respondents. I have carefully considered the motion in its entirety including the grounds and the afidavit. I have also perused the entire record. I find that one issues arises. i. Whether the motion meets the threshold for review. It is my finding that the motion meets the threshold for review because there is a minor error apparent on the face of the record in that the judgment inadvertently left out the amounts to be awarded to each of the Defendants. Order 45 rule 1 (1) (b) allows for review, “on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record…” Consequently, I correct the error in the following terms. Defendant Amount awarded. 5th Kshs 1,350,000/= 7th Kshs 4,680, 000/= https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1296/eng@2025-03-18 2

page 2 of 3

8th Kshs 1,350,000/= 9th Kshs 3,450,000/= 10th Kshs 1,350,000/= 12th Kshs 3,510,000/= 13th Kshs 1,350,000/= 14th Kshs 1,610,000/= 15th Kshs 4,350,000/= The motion dated 12-6-2024 is allowed in terms of prayers 1,2 and 3 and more specifically as above. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANG’A THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. M.N. GICHERU JUDGE. Delivered online in the presence of; Court Assistant – Mwangi Njonjo Applicant’s Counsel – Mr. Kaburu 16th and 17th Defendant’s Counsel Plaintifi Counsel – Mbue Ndegwa TABLE ELC MRG NO. 38 of 2019 3R| 3 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1296/eng@2025-03-18 3

page 3 of 3