[2016] KEHC 1046 (KLR)
The court found that the order issued on 17th July, 2015 contained an obvious error in the account number from which funds were to be transferred. The error was clerical in nature and did not reflect the intention of the court as set out in the application and supporting affidavit. To give effect to the court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1046 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Catherine Wangui; Applicant: Flora Wanjiru; Respondent: David Ndungu Kimama
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 195 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review/variation of Court Order
- Outcome
- application for review allowed
- Judges
- AG Ndung'u
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Correction of Errors, Succession Proceedings
- 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
Catherine Wangui
Applicant
Flora Wanjiru
Applicant
David Ndungu Kimama
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review/variation of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review and vary its previous order to correct an erroneous account number stated in the ruling and order.
- 2 Whether the correction is necessary to give effect to the intended transfer of funds from the respondent's account to the deceased's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the order issued on 17th July, 2015 contained an obvious error in the account number from which funds were to be transferred. The error was clerical in nature and did not reflect the intention of the court as set out in the application and supporting affidavit. To give effect to the court's original intention and facilitate the proper administration of the deceased's estate, it was necessary to review and vary the order to state the correct account number. The application for review was therefore allowed, and the order was amended accordingly. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
application for review allowed
Orders
- The ruling of 17th July, 2015 is reviewed to reflect the correct account number being the respondent's account.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 195 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PETER NJENGA NGANGA (DECEASED)
CATHERINE WANGUI &
FLORA WANJIRU.................................................PETITIONERS
VERSUS
DAVID NDUNGU KIMAMA...................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The application the subject of this ruling is the one dated 20th January, 2016.
The same seek a review/variation of the court's order of 17th July, 2015.
It is the applicant's case that vide its ruling of 17th July, 2015, the court ordered that the money in the Respondent's account be transferred to the deceased's account at Equity Bank.
The account number appearing in the ruling dated 17th July, 2015 and the order issued on 18th September, 2015 was erroneously stated as [particulars withheld] instead of [particulars withheld].
It is urged that it is necessary to vary the order to reflect the correct account number.
Catherine Wangui (hereinafter 1st applicant) and with authority of Flora Wanjiku has sworn a supporting affidavit indicating that upon presentation of the aforesaid order to Equity bank, it was discovered that the account number had been misdescribed as [particulars withheld] instead of the correct account number being [particulars withheld].
During the hearing, counsel for the applicants in a brief submission reiterated the above facts.
I have considered the application, the grounds in support as well as the affidavit on record. I have factored in counsel's brief submission.
The ruling of court dated 17th July, 2015 orders the transfer of monies from the respondent's account No.[particulars withheld] to the applicants' account No.[particulars withheld]. That is obviously an error as the account referred to in the application giving rise to the orders aforesaid is account No.[particulars withheld] being an account held by the Respondent from which monies were to be transferred.
The review sought is thus necessary to give effect to the court orders so as to meet the desired objective.
I consequently allow the summons dated 20th January, 2016. This court's ruling of 17th July, 2015 is reviewed to reflect the correct account number being Respondent's account No.[particulars withheld].
Costs shall be in the cause.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 26th day of July, 2016.
A. K. NDUNG'U
JUDGE