[2024] KEELC 1237 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 1237 (KLR)

The court found that although the plaintiffs had referred to the suit property as MW/III/414 Kikambala in their pleadings, the judgment and the title documents clearly identified the property as MN/III/414 Kikambala. The error in the decree was therefore a clerical mistake or accidental slip, which the court is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 1237 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Toya Fara; Plaintiff: Philemon Muganga Tsori; Defendant: Jimmy Verde Verge; Defendant: Beach Villas Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 39 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Decree
Outcome
Application allowed. Decree rectified to correct the description of the suit property.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Rectification of Decree, Clerical Errors, Description of Property, Amendment of Judgments
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rectification of Decree Clerical Errors Description of Property Amendment of Judgments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Toya Fara

Plaintiff

Philemon Muganga Tsori

Plaintiff

Jimmy Verde Verge

Defendant

Beach Villas Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Ruling on Application for Rectification of Decree

  1. 1 Whether the court can rectify a clerical error in the description of the suit property in the decree.
  2. 2 Whether the error in the decree is an accidental slip or omission correctable under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the plaintiffs had referred to the suit property as MW/III/414 Kikambala in their pleadings, the judgment and the title documents clearly identified the property as MN/III/414 Kikambala. The error in the decree was therefore a clerical mistake or accidental slip, which the court is empowered to correct under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act. The application for rectification was unopposed, and the court was satisfied that the correction was necessary to reflect the true subject matter of the dispute and to avoid confusion or injustice. The court allowed the application and ordered the rectification of the decree to correctly describe the suit...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Decree rectified to correct the description of the suit property.

Orders

  • The decree issued on 16/7/2021 is rectified by amending the description of the suit property from MW/III/414 Kikambala to MN/III/414 Kikambala.
  • There shall be no orders as to costs.