High Court 18580 of 2025

Determination 4. The applicant in this matter has approached this court by way of Chamber Summons seeking the prayers set out therein; however, the Application does not expressly cite the specific enabling provisions of the law under which it is brought, save for a general reference to the Children Act. 5. The matter nonetheless falls to be determined pursuant to Section 199 of the Children Act, 2022; Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; and Order 45, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 6. I have carefully considered the prayers sought by the applicant, and the sole issue for determination is whether this Court should vary order No. 2 contained in the Judgement dated 6th May, 2025 which indicated the child’s name as SMK instead of SL. 7. On whether this Court is empowered to grant the orders sought, which answer is in the affirmative, lies squarely in Section 199 of the Children Act, 2022, which provides for variation of adoption orders, and states that: 8. “ 199. Variation of orders (1) The Court which makes an adoption order may, on the application of the adopter, vary the order to correct any defect in the particulars contained therein and direct that the varied order be lodged with the Registrar, who shall cause the Adopted Children Register to be rectified accordingly.” The aforementioned provision is an offshoot of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act which provides guidance on the orders sought by the Applicant. The provision is reproduced hereunder: “ 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.” 9. That Section is further operationalised by Order 45, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides that where there is an error apparent on the face of an order, or for any other sufficient reason, the court seized of a matter has discretion to review or vary its orders accordingly. It states as follows: “ 1. Application for review of decree or order [Order 45, rule 1] (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18580/eng@2025-10-30 2

page 2 of 4

on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.” 10. The Court of Appeal, upon an extensive consideration of the application of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act in the case of Republic v Attorney General & 15 others, Ex-Parte Kenya Seed Company Limited & 5 others [2010] eKLR, expressed itself 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 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.” 11. By parity of reason, Section 199 of the Children Act, 2022; Order 45, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2022; and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2022, when construed together with the decision in Republic v Attorney General & 15 others, Ex-Parte Kenya Seed Company Limited & 5 others [2010] eKLR collectively clothe this Court with the jurisdiction and power to grant orders sought in the present application. 12. In sum, the court has power to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in its judgement or any error arising therein, from an accidental slip or omission. Such correction may be undertaken either on the Court’s own motion or upon application by any interested party, at any stage, whether before or after the judgment has been embodied in a formal order. The “slip rule” does not permit the court to sit in judgment on its own previous judgement; rather, it enables the Court to correct error so as to give true effect to its original intention. 13. Upon perusal of the pleadings and proceedings herein, I note that the minor in question is consistently identified as SL in the following documents: the Court Order appointing the Guardian ad Litem dated 15th April; the Guardian ad Litem’s Report dated 22nd April 2025; and the Children’s Officer’s Report dated 25th April 2025. 14. However, in the final order issued by this honourable court, the minor is instead referred to as SMK. This error clearly arises from a clerical mistake occasioned by counsel in the Originating Summons dated 31st March 2025, wherein the prayer was sought as follows: “ That the Applicant be authorized to adopt SL a minor who is to be known as SMK, and the Registrar General be directed to enter this adoption in the Register of Adoptions.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18580/eng@2025-10-30 3

page 3 of 4

15. In the present application, the Applicant urges the Court to vary the adoption order to reflect the child’s correct name. Pursuant to the powers conferred upon this Court under Section 199 of the Children Act, 2022, Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2022, and Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act this court retains the ability to rectify such clerical errors. 16. Consequently, upon due consideration of the Application and record before this Court, I hereby invoke the Slip Rule and vary the Adoption Order issued on 6th May 2025, together with all consequential orders arising therefrom, to correct the error in the particulars of the minor’s name by substituting SMK with SL as appears in the pleadings and supporting documents on record. 17. The Registrar of Adoptions is hereby directed to rectify the Adopted Children Register accordingly to reflect the corrected name of the child as SL. There would be no order as to costs. 18. The upshot is that the Chamber Summons dated 10th September 2025 is hereby allowed in terms of prayers (1) thereof. It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. ......................................... E. K. OGOLA JUDGE In the presence of: Ms Muhendo ………………………………………….. for the Applicant. Gisiele……………………………………………………….. Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18580/eng@2025-10-30 4

page 4 of 4