[2008] KEHC 3321 (KLR)
The court found that the judgment delivered on 11th October 2007 contained a clear error apparent on the face of the record, namely, the misdescription of the parties by referring to the appellant as the respondent and vice versa. The court held that it is empowered to correct such errors under the law governing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3321 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Cornelius Kaunguja M’Akane; Respondent: David Kailikia M’Imathiu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 20 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- application for review allowed
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record, Correction of Misdescription
- 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
Cornelius Kaunguja M’Akane
Appellant
David Kailikia M’Imathiu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment contains a misdescription of the parties amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record.
- 2 Whether the court has the power to review and correct such an error in its judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the judgment delivered on 11th October 2007 contained a clear error apparent on the face of the record, namely, the misdescription of the parties by referring to the appellant as the respondent and vice versa. The court held that it is empowered to correct such errors under the law governing review of judgments. Accordingly, the court ordered that the word 'appellant' wherever it appears in the judgment be substituted with 'respondent' and vice versa, except for the last paragraph on page 2, line 1. The court declined to make any order as to costs for the application itself but awarded costs in the lower court to the appellant.
Court Disposition
application for review allowed
Orders
- The judgment is reviewed to substitute the word 'appellant' with 'respondent' and vice versa wherever they appear, except for the last paragraph on page 2, line 1.
- No order as to costs in this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
Civil Appeal 20 of 2003
CORNELIUS KAUNGUJA M’AKANE …….....…………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
DAVID KAILIKIA M’IMATHIU ……………………………. RESPONDENT
RULING
This is a simple application for review of this court’s judgment delivered on 11th October 2007 on the ground that the parties are misdescribed in the said judgment.
I have looked at the pleadings and the judgment and I am satisfied that indeed instead of making reference to the appellant the word respondent has been used. That is clearly a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record which this court is empowered to correct.
For the above reason, the judgment is reviewed and it is ordered that the word “appellant” where it appears in the judgment be substituted with the word “respondent’ and vice verse save on the last paragraph page 2 line 1 of the judgment.
I make no orders as to costs in this application. However costs in the lower court is awarded to the appellant.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 28th day of April.2008.
W. OUKO
JUDG