[2009] KEHC 3176 (KLR)
The court found that the decree issued previously contained a clerical error in the land parcel number, which was only discovered when the applicant sought registration of the property. The correct parcel number, as evidenced by the original title deed, is LR 7288/133 and not LR 7388/133 as previously recorded. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3176 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Chebalungu Kongasis Trading Co.; Defendant: Livingstone Milgo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 50 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review/rectification of Decree
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Review of Decree, Rectification of Error, Land Registration, Consent Judgment
- 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
Chebalungu Kongasis Trading Co.
Plaintiff
Livingstone Milgo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review/rectification of Decree
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review and rectify the decree to correct the land parcel number due to a clerical error.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the rectification sought after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the decree issued previously contained a clerical error in the land parcel number, which was only discovered when the applicant sought registration of the property. The correct parcel number, as evidenced by the original title deed, is LR 7288/133 and not LR 7388/133 as previously recorded. The respondent raised no objection to the application. Given the clear evidence of the correct parcel number and the absence of opposition, the court held that it was just and proper to review and rectify the decree to reflect the correct land parcel number. The court emphasized that the delay in seeking rectification, though regrettable, did not prejudice the respondent and that...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The decree is reviewed and rectified to state LR 7288/133 instead of LR 7388/133.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO Civil Suit 50 of 2006
CHEBALUNGU KONGASIS TRADING CO. ……………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LIVINGSTONE MILGO …………………………………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
Application to review/rectify decree Notice of Motion 26th July, 2007
I:Background
1. The delay in this mater is regretted.
2. Livingstone Milgo was secretary to M/S Chebalungu Kongasis trading company, the applicant original plaintiff herein. He registered the property of the company being LR. 7388/133 in his name. The company filed suit in the Resident Magistrates Court at Kericho No. 143/1980 and sought orders of declaration that the land indeed belongs to the said company. The parties attended to court and on 27th March, 1981 the parties by consent agreed that the said suit be accordingly declared as belonging to the company ( ICC Wambilyanga RM ( as he was then)).
3. Twenty five years later the applicant filed an originating summons before this court (20. 6.06) seeking the same prayers. No explanation is given as to this action. The same was granted (Kimaru J) (2. 11. 06).
4. A year later it was proved that there was an error on the record. The applicants file this application herein for my consideration.
II: Application Notice of Motion 26th July, 2007
5. The application seeks to review the court order issued.
6. The reasons for seeking the review is that the decree had an error. That the land parcel was stated as LR 7388/133 instead of LR 7288/133.
III: Findings
7. The information placed before Kimaru J was that the land parcel was LR 7388/133. It is only after the applicant sought registration did it transpire that the correct title was 7288/1333. In this review the original title deed was attached showing the correct owner and number therein.
8. The respondent had no objection to this application.
9. I would accordingly confirm, due to the delay in this matter since 1980, that the Decree be reviewed and rectified being LR 7288/133 and not LR 7388/133.
10. The application is granted and orders accordingly. There will be no orders as to costs.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2009 atKERICHO
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates
N.O. Migiro from the firm of M/S N.O. Migiro & Co. advocate for the Applicant/Plaintiff – present
N/A for the Respondent in person