The Trustees of the Church Commissioners of Kenya, Registered Trustees v National Land Commission & Taita Taveta County Government

2010 and quash them. 4. THAT an order directed to the 2nd Respondent be and is hereby issued to immediately cause the survey of the suit land and proceed to issue a Title Deed to the Petitioner of the suit land. 5. THAT a permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Respondent or any other party from interfering with the Petitioners ownership, occupation, use and interest over the suit land or otherwise from evicting or attempting to evict the Petitioners from the suit land or from issuing Title Deeds or in any other way alienating the suit land other than to the Petitioners. 6. THAT the costs and interest of the Petition dated 29th January 2016 to be awarded to the Petitioner and be borne by the Respondents jointly and severally, It is so ordered accordingly.” 2. The Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2026 (“the Application”) brought pursuant to Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law for orders: “1. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner to amend the Judgement and Decree of this Court delivered on 26th September 2024 (formally issued on 26th December 2024). 2. THAT upon grant of leave, the said Judgement and Decree be duly amended in Order/Paragraph 3 by deleting the date of "4th October 2010" appearing therein and substituting the same with the correct date of "16th October 1984" in reference to the VOI PART DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 49. 3. THAT the costs of this application be in the cause.” 3. The Application is Supported by Affidavit of Zaccheaus Shaphat Marumba sworn on the 9.6.2026 and grounds on its face of even date. B. Directions of the Court: Page 2 of 8

page 2 of 8

On 02.07.2026 the Court granted the Respondents time to file their response and the Petitioner leave to put in further affidavit. 4. Page 3 of 8

page 3 of 8

4. On 20.07.2026, Respondents were granted more time to put in their response and submission. by consent Application 5. The to be canvassed Respondents have yet to put in any response, Application is unopposed. by written hence the C. Submissions by Parties: 6. The Petitioner/Applicant filed the submissions dated 24.07.2026 .the respondents did not. 7. The Applicant submits that the date of Voi Part Development Plan No. 49 was inadvertently stated as 4th October 2010 instead of the correct date, 16th October 1984. 8. The applicant contended that the correction is purely clerical , is supported by the record and Annexure “ZSMN-3”, does not alter the substance of the Judgment, and will cause no prejudice to the Respondents. The Application is premised on Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. In support of the application , Applicant relies on Auto Hauliers (K) Limited v Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 4 Others [2024] KEELC 7411 (KLR) and Ethics and AntiCorruption Commission v Joseph Oroko Ongera & Sammy Silas Komen Mwaita [2021] KEELC 420 (KLR), submitting that Section 99 embodies the slip rule and permits the Court to correct clerical or arithmetical errors in a judgment or decree so as to give effect to its true intention, without reopening or altering the substantive determination. D .Analysis and Determination: 9. The issue for determination is whether the error in the date of Voi Part Development Plan No. 49 appearing in Order 3 of the Judgment and the resultant Decree is a clerical or accidental error amenable to correction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. 10. The Petitioner/Applicant sought rectification of a clerical error in Order 3 of the Judgment delivered on 26th September 2024 and the resultant Decree issued on 26th December 2024. 11. Section 99 & 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, provides: - Page 4 of 8

page 4 of 8

“99. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders 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. 100. General power to amend The court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on the proceeding.” 12. The Court of Appeal in Ndeti & another v Matei Julius Mulili Ndeti & Nzioki Mulili Ndeti (Administrators of the Estate of Harrison Mulili Ndeti - Deceased) & 4 others [2023] KECA 60 (KLR) stipulated: “43. A review of our decisional law (particularly post 2010 decisions of this Court) shows that this Court has acknowledged its residual jurisdiction to re-open its decisions. For the sake of succinctness, reserved powers, residual powers, or residual powers are the powers that are neither prohibited nor explicitly given by law. Some concepts in the common law such as “residual” are frequently invoked yet they remain nebulous. Sir Jack Jacob in The Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction [1970] 23 CLP 23] defines the concept of residual power as: “ …residual source of powers, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.” 44. However, this residual power is l inked to a discretion Page 5 of 8

page 5 of 8

which enables the court to confine its use to the cases in which it is appropriate for the jurisdiction to be exercised. The residual powers of this Court are not an open license for the court to exercise unlimited discretion. Residual powers are invoked to effect fairness between the parties where a statute falls short of doing so or where there is a gap in the law. The residual power claimed is not merely one derived from the need to make the court's order effective, and to control its own procedure, but also to hold the scales of justice where no specific law provides directly for a given situation.” 13. The provision confers upon the court the jurisdiction to correct errors apparent on the face of the record at any time, whether on its own motion or upon application by a party. 14. In a persuasive decision the court of Auto Hauliers (K) Limited v Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning & 4 others (Environment & Land Petition 19 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 7411 (KLR) stated: “18. According to the provision of Section 99, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may lead to an application such as the present. The errors that Section 99 seeks to cure are those the court may make while going about its business. In the case of “V. Karsandas Ramuga – Versus - Mansukhlal Jivuraji & Others 1965 E.A 700. It was held (ii) the words “at any time”. In the provision of Section 99 Civil Procedure Act allows the prayer of amendment to be exercised after the issue of formal order, (iv) a slip order will only be made where the court is fully satisfied that it is giving effect to the intention of the court at the time when judgment was given, or in 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 then been brought to his attention. 19. The Australian Civil Procedure has provisions in pari materia with section 99. As was stated in the case of “Newmont Yandal Operations Pty Limited – Versus - The J. Page 6 of 8

page 6 of 8

Aron Corp & The Goldman Sachs Group Inc [2007] 70 NSWLR 411”, the inherent jurisdiction extends to correcting a duly entered judgment where the orders do not truly represent what the court intended. 20. It is a codication 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 ocio upon issuing a judgment or order, to grant the power to reopen the case but only for the limited purposes stated in the section. Some of the applications of the rule are fairly obvious and common place and are easily discernible like clerical errors, 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. 21. A court will, of course, only apply the slip rule where it is fully satised 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. In either case, the court may proceed on its own motion or on application by any party. As for the procedure, none is provided for under Section 99 and therefore, under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules a ‘Notice of Motion’ is the prescribed procedure.” 15. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the record, the Court is satisfied that the reference to “4th October 2010” in Order 3 of the Judgment and resultant Decree was a clerical error and does not accord with the approval date of the Part Development Plan established on the record. 16. Order 3 of the Judgment delivered on 26th September 2024 and the Page 7 of 8

page 7 of 8

formal Decree issued on 26th December 2024 should be corrected pursuant to Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 to reflect the correct approval date of Voi Part Development Plan No. 49 as 16th October 1984, instead of 4th October 2010.The correction is purely clerical and does not alter the reasoning, substantive findings or final determination of the Judgment nor does it cause prejudice to the Respondents. Consequently, the Application is meritorious and allowed as follows: a. Leave is granted to the petitioner to amend the judgment and decree of this court delivered on 26th September,2024 formerly issued on the 26th ,December,2024. b. The Judgement/decree is hereby amended by deleting the date of 4th October 2010 appearing therein and substituted with the correct date of 16th October,1984 in reference to Voi Part Development plan No 49. c. Costs of the application be borne by the Applicant. It is so ordered accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 AT VOI. HON. J. A. ORWA JUDGE IN THE PRESENCE OF MS. SIMIYU FOR THE APPLICANT /PETITIONER MR. LETISIA - COURT ASSISTANT BUT ABSENCE OF RESPONDENTS Page 8 of 8

page 8 of 8