Jepkemboi & another v Arap Ngisirei (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5190 (KLR) (5 August 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 5190 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAPSABET ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E004 OF 2023 GMA ONGONDO, J AUGUST 5, 2026 BETWEEN JANE JEPKEMBOI ............................................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF BETHWEL KIBICHI LIMO ............................................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF AND KIBET ARAP NGISIREI ....................................................................... DEFENDANT RULING 1. In an application originated by way of a Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2025, the applicant/ defendant through Rotich Langat and Partners Advocates sought the principal orders of stay of execution of the Certificate of costs and orders issued on 29th September 2025 further to the ruling of 12th September 2025 by this Honourable Court pending the hearing and determination of this Eldoret Coaca No. E062 of 2025 Julius Kipkemboi (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kibet Arap Gisirei (Deceased) versus Jane Jepkemboi and Bethwel Kibichy. 2. Notably, this Honourable Court after hearing the parties, allowed the principal orders by the ruling delivered on 29th day of July 2026 herein. In arriving at the said determination, the court noted in part that it was common baseline that the said appeal exists. That the respondent is anxious to execute the decree and certificate of costs. Reliance was made on, inter alia, Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Goldenberg Afiair & 3 others vs Kilach (2023) KLR 249 at 365 & 266 and Board of Governors Moi High School Kabarak & another vs Malcolm Bell (2013) KLR on safeguarding the character and integrity of the subject matter of the appeal. 3. Further, it is worth to note that there is an error apparent at paragraph 5 of the said ruling. The error or accidental slip relates to the words ‘allow the application’ immediately after the words ‘Counsel relied on’ and immediately before the words ‘Order 42’ therein. The erroneous words call for their deletion to give efiect to the intention in the sentence of the paragraph thereof. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5190/eng@2026-08-05 1
page 1 of 2
4. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya relying on its decision in Fredrick Outa vs Jared Odongo Okello & 3 others {2017} KESC 25 (KLR) in the case of Vision 2030 Delivery Board vs Commission on Administrative Justice & 2 others {2024} KESC 67 (KLR), held thus; ‘…..By its nature the ‘Slip Rule’ permits a court of law to correct errors that are apparent on the face of the judgment, ruling or order of the court. Such errors must be so obvious that their correction cannot generate any controversy regarding that judgment or decision of the court. By the same token, such errors must of such nature that their correction would not change the substance of the judgment or alter the clear intention of the court………as to substantially alter it…….this is the true import of the Slip Rule.’ 5. So, the court may at any time in its own motion correct such an error or accidental slip pursuant to the decision in Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board case (supra) and section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya. 6. In the premises, the words ‘allow the application’ immediately after the words ‘Counsel relied on’ and immediately before the words ‘Order 42’ in paragraph 5 of the ruling rendered on 29th July 2026 herein, are hereby corrected by deletion of the same. Thus, as the application dated 13th October 2025 was merited and allowed with no orders as to costs, the instant file is closed. 7. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026. HON. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5190/eng@2026-08-05 2
page 2 of 2