[2009] KEHC 142 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the amendment sought because it was not clear whether the amended decree of 7th December, 2006 accurately reflected the judgment of Visram J., as the judgment itself was not provided. Additionally, Section 8(3) of the Law Reform Act stipulates that the order of the court is final and not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 142 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Avtar Singh Sura; Defendant: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 25A of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Amend Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Judgment, Accidental Error, Interest Award, Finality of Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Avtar Singh Sura
Plaintiff
The Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Amend Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can amend its judgment to rectify an accidental error apparent on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the amended decree reflects the judgment of Visram J.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review or amend its final orders under Section 8(3) of the Law Reform Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the amendment sought because it was not clear whether the amended decree of 7th December, 2006 accurately reflected the judgment of Visram J., as the judgment itself was not provided. Additionally, Section 8(3) of the Law Reform Act stipulates that the order of the court is final and not subject to review, which precluded the court from granting the amendment. The court emphasized that while it is a court of justice and should correct errors where possible, it cannot do so in contravention of statutory finality provisions or without clear evidence of the original judgment's content.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to amend the judgment is disallowed.
- No amendment orders are granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Miscellaneous 25A of 2006
AVTAR SINGH SURA……………………………………..…….. PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………….. DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is a Notice of Motion dated 26th February, 2006 said to be filed under section 3A and 39 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21), and Order XX Rule 3 (3), and Order L Rule 1 of the Civil procedure Rules. It seeks for 6 orders, one of which has been spent, that-
1. (spent)
2. The judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice G.
Dulu delivered herein on 25th November, 2008 be amended so as to rectify an accidental error apparent in the said Judgment.
3. The said Judgment per the amended decree of
7th December, 2006 to read that the decretal
amount of Kshs.122,770/= be paid with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full and not per the original decree of 16th December, 2003 as contained in the said judgment.
4. In the circumstances, the true and correct
period from which the interest awarded to the applicant on the decretal amount should be from the date of filing suit.
5. Such further orders and or directions be given
to the intent that the amounts payable by the Respondent to the applicant be fully and finally determined.
6. The costs of this application be provided for.
There are grounds on the face of the Notice of Motion. The application was also supported by an affidavit sworn by CAROLINE A. OMONDI advocate for the applicant on 24th February, 2009.
The application does not appear to be opposed. Mr. Waudo for the respondent left the matter to court for a decision.
It is apparent that the application is based on the amended decree signed by the Deputy Registrar on 7th December, 2006. I have not seen or shown the judgment of Visram J. I am not quite certain whether the said amended decree amended on 7th December, 2006 reflected what was contained in the Judgment of Visram J. For this reason, I cannot grant the amendment orders sought in the absence of the decision of the Judge.
This is a court of justice, and therefore parties should not suffer because of errors which can be corrected. However, the Law Reform Act Section 8 (3) of Cap. 26 provides that the order of court is final and not subject to review. This is the second reason why I will not grant the amendment sought.
I therefore disallow the application and decline to grant the orders sought.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 26th day of November, 2009.
George Dulu
Judge.
In the presence of-
Ms. Wasuna for the applicant
David Court Clerk