Francis Kipkoech Lelei v Stephen Keino Tarus

e) THAT the costs of this application be in the cause. 2. The present application is premised on the 8 grounds on the face thereof and on the plaintiff/Applicant’s Supporting Affidavit sworn on even date. 3. The Applicant stated that the Honourable Court issued a Decree on 19th April 2023 following its judgment in this suit. 4. It was his claim that the Decree erroneously describes the suit property as Land Parcel No. LAINGUSE / KIPTEGA /OL’LEGUISE/ 487 AT KONDOO Settlement Scheme, instead of the correct description Land Parcel No. KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487. 5. The Applicant states that the suit land throughout the pleadings, evidence, consistently referred submissions, to as and KONDOO Judgment was SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487. 6. The Applicant further states that he presented the decree at Uasin Gishu Land’s Offices for compliance, which has taken long due to verification processs. 7. The Applicant herein avers that on 9 th day of December 2025, he was informed by the Land’s Registrar that the ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 2

page 2 of 12

decree of court has clerical errors and does not tally with the parcel file to enable him enforce the decree accordingly. 8. It is his claim that the error is purely clerical and accidental, and does not reflect the true intention or decision of the Court. 9. In addition, the Applicant herein claims that due to the said error, the Lands Registry has declined to act on the Decree, thereby frustrating and delaying compliance and execution. 10. The Applicant herein maintains that the correction sought will not prejudice any party and will only enable proper implementation of the Court’s Judgment. 11. In conclusion he urged the Honorable Court to allow the said application. 12. The Respondent herein were served with the said application dated 16th December 2025 and there is no response thereto. 13. The application therefore stands unopposed. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 14. I have carefully looked at the facts and grounds in the application and the affidavit in support thereto, leading me to the conclusion that the only issue for determination is ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 3

page 3 of 12

“Whether the decree issued on 19th April 2023 has errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission that can be amended and/or rectified. 15. This Honorable Court is equally conscious and on the lookout for an evident error which does not require extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. 16. In this regard the Applicant suggests and alludes that the description of the suit property appearing in the Decree as: “Land Parcel No. Lainguse/Kiptega/Ol’leguise/487 at Kondoo” be corrected and substituted with the proper and accurate description as: “LAND PARCEL NO. KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487.” 17. Therefore, it’s the Applicants prayer herein that the Deputy Registrar be directed to issue an amended and corrected Decree reflecting the proper description of the suit property as LAND PARCEL NO. KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487. 18. The provision of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 provides as follows: “Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.” ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 4

page 4 of 12

19. Therefore, the provision of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is commonly referred to as the “slip rule.” Its purpose is to enable the Court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission, so that the formal judgment or decree accurately reflects the decision which the Court intended to pronounce. The provision does not, however, confer upon the Court a power to reopen, reconsider or substantively alter a judgment under the guise of correcting an error. 20. In support of the above, the case of Raniga vs. Jivalji & Ano. [1965] EA, 700, the Court of Appeal in discussing the provisions of section 99 of Cap 21 which is sometimes called the ‘slip rule’ stated: “A court will, of course, only apply the slip rule where it is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court the time when judgment was given or, in the case of a matter which was overlooked, where it is satisfied beyond doubt, as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention. In the present case, we feel no doubt that if the facts had been before the court when judgment was given on the appeal, the court would, on application or indeed of its own motion, have made the orders for refund now ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 5

page 5 of 12

sought which was, in our opinion, necessarily consequential on the decision on the main issues.” 21. Similarly, in the case of case of Nguruman Limited Vs Attorney General & another [2021] eKLR the court while dealing with a similar issue held as follows:“27. It is a codification of the common law doctrine dubbed the 'Slip Rule', the history and application of which has a wealth of authorities both locally and from common Law jurisdictions. It is a rule that applies as part of the inherent jurisdiction of the court which would otherwise become functus officio upon issuing a judgment or order, to grant the power to reopen the case but only for the limited purposes stated in the section. 28. Some of the applications of the rule are fairly obvious and discernible common like place clerical and errors, are easily arithmetical mistakes, calculations of interest, wrong figures or dates. Each case will, of course, depend on its own facts, but the rule will also apply where the correction of the slip is to give effect to the actual intention of the Judge and or ensure that the judgment/order does not have a consequence which the Judge intended to avoid adjudicating on.” ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 6

page 6 of 12

22. Further, in the case of Patrick Kilonzo Vs Teachers Service Commission 2015] eKLR the Court quoted Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga Vs. Mansukhlal Jivraj and Others [1965] EA 780, where the East African Court of Appeal held: “Section 3(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act confers on the Court of Appeal the same jurisdiction to amend judgments, decrees and orders that the High Court has under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, making it unnecessary to look to the inherent powers of the court. The words "at any time" in section 99 clearly allow the power of amendment to be exercised after the issue of a formal order... "Slip orders" are made to rectify omissions resulting from the failure of counsel to ask for costs and other matters to which their clients are entitled. A court will only apply the slip rules where it is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when judgment was given or, in the case of a matter which was overlooked, where it is satisfied, beyond doubt, as to the order which it would have made had the matter been brought to its attention.” ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 7

page 7 of 12

23. The question therefore is whether the description of the suit property in the decree Lainguse/Kiptega/Ol’leguise/487 as “Land Parcel No. at Kondoo”, instead of “LAND PARCEL NO. KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487”, constitutes an accidental slip or omission capable of correction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. 24. From the pleadings before the Court, the Applicant's contention is that the suit property was consistently described throughout the pleadings, evidence, submissions and ultimately the Judgment as LAND PARCEL NO. KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487. The error is said to have arisen only in the formal decree extracted on 19th April 2023. 25. The Applicant has further explained that when the decree was presented to the Lands Registry for purposes of implementation, the discrepancy in the description of the property was brought to his attention. The Land Registrar reportedly indicated that the description appearing in the decree did not correspond with the parcel file, thereby preventing implementation of the Court's decree. 26. I have therefore, considered the nature of the correction sought. I have also perused the court record, particularly the pleadings. The property that was the subject of proceedings and judgment was throughout referred to as LR. No. Kondoo Settlement Scheme/487. The Applicant is not asking this Court to reconsider the Judgment, alter the reliefs granted, determine ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 ownership afresh, or Ruling introduce a Page 8

page 8 of 12

different parcel of land into the proceedings. The correction sought is confined to the description of the property appearing in the decree. 27. More importantly, if, as asserted by the Applicant and borne out by the Court record, the property that was the subject of the proceedings and the Judgment was throughout identified as KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487, then the description appearing in the decree as “Land Parcel No. Lainguse/Kiptega/Ol’leguise/487 at Kondoo” is inconsistent with the very property upon which the Court adjudicated. 28. It is therefore my view that such an inconsistency is precisely the kind of error that Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act is intended to cure where the Court is satisfied from the record that the erroneous description in the decree was not part of the Court's intended determination but was an accidental slip in the preparation or extraction of the decree. 29. I further place my reliance on the case of Republic Vs Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] eKLR where the Court while discussing what constitutes an error on the face of the record, rendered itself as follows: “In Attorney General & O'rs v Boniface Byanyima, [8] the court citing Levi Outa Vs Uganda Transport Company, [9] held that the expression "mistake or error apparent on the face of record" refers to an evident error which does not require ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 9

page 9 of 12

extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It is an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record. It may be an error of law, but law must be definite and capable of ascertainment.” 30. I am therefore satisfied that the correction sought herein does not amount to a substantive alteration of the Judgment or decree. Rather, it is intended to ensure that the formal decree accurately reflects the identity of the property that was the subject of the proceedings and the Court's determination. 31. I have also taken into account the fact that the Respondent was duly served with the Application and has not filed any response challenging the correction sought. The Application therefore remains unopposed. While the absence of opposition does not, by itself, entitle an Applicant to the orders sought, it is a relevant consideration where the Court independently finds that the statutory threshold under Section 99 has been satisfied. 32. Further, no prejudice has been demonstrated as likely to be occasioned to the Respondent by the correction. The purpose of the amendment is not to confer upon the Applicant a new substantive right but to facilitate the implementation of the decree in accordance with the Judgment already rendered by the Court. ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 10

page 10 of 12

33. I accordingly find that the discrepancy in the description of the suit property appearing in the decree issued on 19 th April 2023 amounts to an error arising from an accidental slip or omission within the meaning of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and is therefore amenable to correction under the said provision. Who shall bear the costs of the present application; 34. The general rule is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the court is satisfied otherwise. In this case, the Respondent did not participate in the application, though served. 35. Therefore, it is trite that each party to bear its own costs. ORDERS:- 36. Consequently, the Notice of Motion Application dated 16th December 2025 is hereby allowed in the following terms: a) The clerical error appearing in the Decree issued on 19th April 2023 is hereby corrected. b) The description of the suit property appearing in the said Decree as: “Land Parcel No. Lainguse/Kiptega/Ol’leguise/487 at Kondoo” is hereby deleted and substituted with: “LAND PARCEL NO. KONDOO SETTLEMENT Ruling Page 11 SCHEME/487.” ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019

page 11 of 12

c) The Deputy Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to issue an amended and corrected Decree reflecting the proper description of the suit property as LAND PARCEL NO. KONDOO SETTLEMENT SCHEME/487. d) Each party to bear its own costs. 37. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET this 24th day of SEPTEMBER, 2026. HON. C.K. YANO JUDGE Ruling delivered in the virtual presence of: Mr. Angu for Plaintiff/ Applicant. No appearance for Defendant/Respondent. Court Assistant – Laban ELC Case No. 87 Of 2019 Ruling Page 12

page 12 of 12