[2009] KEHC 542 (KLR)
The court found that while it is a court of justice and should correct errors where possible, Section 8(3) of the Law Reform Act provides that the order of the court is final and not subject to review. The court was not satisfied that the amended decree reflected the judgment of Visram J., and in the absence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 542 (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
- Children Miscellaneous Application 25”A’ 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 judgment delivered on 25th November, 2008 should be amended to rectify an accidental error apparent in the judgment.
- 2 Whether interest on the decretal amount should be calculated from the date of filing suit until payment in full as per the amended decree of 7th December, 2006.
- 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review or amend its order in light of Section 8(3) of the Law Reform Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while it is a court of justice and should correct errors where possible, Section 8(3) of the Law Reform Act provides that the order of the court is final and not subject to review. The court was not satisfied that the amended decree reflected the judgment of Visram J., and in the absence of clear evidence and in light of the statutory bar on review, the application to amend the judgment was disallowed. The court declined to grant the orders sought by the applicant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to amend the judgment is disallowed.
- No orders granted as sought in the Notice of Motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Miscellaneous 25”A’ 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 advocates 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.
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.
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.