[2016] KEHC 688 (KLR)
The court found that the omission of the word 'THANANGA' in the description of the suit land was an inadvertent clerical error. The oral application for rectification was merited as it sought to correct the record to accurately reflect the subject matter of the suit. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 688 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Erastus Mbaabu & Another; Defendant: M'Mburugu M'Rinkanya & 9 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 9 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Oral Application for Rectification of Suit Land Description
- Outcome
- oral application for rectification allowed; caution to be removed; no order as to costs
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Rectification of Record, Land Title Description, Removal of Caution
- 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
Erastus Mbaabu & Another
Plaintiff
M'Mburugu M'Rinkanya & 9 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Oral Application for Rectification of Suit Land Description
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should rectify the description of the suit land to include the omitted word 'THANANGA'.
- 2 Whether the caution registered against the corrected land parcel should be removed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the omission of the word 'THANANGA' in the description of the suit land was an inadvertent clerical error. The oral application for rectification was merited as it sought to correct the record to accurately reflect the subject matter of the suit. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to amend its previous ruling and ordered that the suit land be correctly described as TIGANIA/TEA SCHEME THANANGA/38. Consequently, the caution registered against the correctly described parcel at the instance of the 1st Plaintiff was ordered to be removed forthwith. No order as to costs was made regarding the oral application.
Court Disposition
oral application for rectification allowed; caution to be removed; no order as to costs
Orders
- The description of the suit land is rectified to read TIGANIA/TEA SCHEME THANANGA/38.
- The caution registered against land parcel NO.TIGANIA/TEA SCHEME THANANGA/38 at the instance of the 1st Plaintiff is to be removed forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 9 OF 1987
ERASTUS MBAABU & ANOTHER................................................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
M'MBURUGU M'RINKANYA & 9 OTHERS................................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. Mr. Gatari Ringera informed the Court that in a Ruling delivered on 16th day of March, 2016 the Court referred to the Suit land as TIGANIA/TEA/SCHEME/38 when it should have read TIGANIA/TEA/SCHEME THANANGA/38.
2. MR. Gatari Ringera owned up that the apposite application had an inadvertent error in that one word, THANANGA, was left out.
3. Mr. Ringera asked the Court to issue an order for rectification so that title of the suit land reads TIGANIA/TEA SCHEME THANANGA/38.
4. I find that the oral application prosecuted by Mr. Ringera is merited.
5. The oral application is allowed.
6. It is ordered as follows:-
1. The caution registered against land parcel NO.TIGANIA/TEA SCHEME THANANGA/38 at the instance of the 1st Plaintiff be removed forthwith.
2. No costs concerning this oral application are awarded.
7. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU ON 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C.A : Daniel /James
Gatari Ringera for the 3rd Defendant.
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE