https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7456

Equity Bank Kenya Limited (Miscellaneous Application E536 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7456 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (25 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7456 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Miscellaneous Application E536 of 2026 MO Ado, J May 25, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF YOUNG TRADERS TIGONI LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT NO. 17 OF 2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REGISTRATION OF A CHARGE In the matter of Equity Bank Kenya Limited Applicant Ruling Introduction 1.For consideration is the Applicant’s Ex Parte Notice of Motion dated 25th May 2026 seeking amendment of the orders issued by this Court on 15th May 2026. 2.The application is expressed to be brought under Sections 878, 885, and 888 of the Companies Act, 2015, and Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and seeks that this Court amends its earlier orders so as to include Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1309 in addition to Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1312. 3.The background of the matter is that by a ruling delivered on 15th May 2026, this Court allowed an application for extension of time within which to register a charge dated 24th March 2026 over Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1312. 4.It is now contended in the present application that the charge instrument covers two properties jointly and that one of the properties, being Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1309, was inadvertently omitted from the initial application, and the resultant Court order. 5.The Applicant therefore urges the Court to amend its orders to align them with the charge instrument. Analysis and Determination 6.I have duly considered the application and the applicable law. The issue for determination is whether this Court can amend its orders of 15th May 2026 to include a property that was not part of the application upon which those orders were made. 7.It is not in dispute that the application dated 11th May 2026, which culminated in the ruling of 15th May 2026, was specific to Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1312. 8.The Court’s jurisdiction in that application was invoked and exercised strictly in relation to that specific property. The orders granted were correspondingly confined to that subject matter. 9.The present application invites the Court to expand those orders to include an additional property, namely Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1309, which was not placed before the Court for consideration in the original application. 10.In the view of this Court, such an amendment would not amount to a mere correction of an accidental slip or clerical error. Rather, it would constitute a substantive variation of the Court’s earlier orders and an enlargement of the scope of the original application. 11.Courts are functus officio once they have rendered a final decision, save for limited exceptions such as correction of clerical or arithmetic errors. The omission of an entire property from the pleadings and the resulting order cannot be properly characterised as such an error. 12.The Civil Procedure Rules provide under Order 21 Rule 3 (3) that: -“A judgment once signed shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by section 99 of the Act or on review.” 13.Further, the Applicant has invoked Section 888 of the Companies Act. That provision empowers the Court to extend time or rectify omissions relating to the registration of charges, and in appropriate cases, to order rectification of the register of charges. 14.However, Section 888 does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court to reopen, review, or substantively amend its own orders so as to introduce new subject matter that was not part of the original proceedings. 15.The omission of Land Title Number Nairobi/Block221/1309 from the earlier application, even if inadvertent, cannot be cured through amendment of the existing orders. The proper course would have been to place the full subject matter before the Court in the first instance, or to institute a fresh application addressing the omitted property. 16.To allow the present application would be to permit a party to indirectly obtain orders in respect of a subject matter that was never judicially considered, thereby offending principles of procedural fairness and finality of litigation. 17.In the circumstances, this Court finds that it lacks the jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. 18.Accordingly, the application dated 25th May 2026 is therefore without merit and is hereby declined. 19.There shall be no order as to costs. 20.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT