[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can rectify a clerical error in the description of the suit property in the decree.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Fara & another v Verge & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 39 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 1237 (KLR) (7 March 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 1237 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 39 of 2019
FM Njoroge, J
March 7, 2024
Between
Edward Toya Fara
1st Plaintiff
Philemon Muganga Tsori
2nd Plaintiff
and
Jimmy Verde Verge
1st Defendant
Beach Villas Limited
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. This court delivered a judgment in this matter, in favour of the plaintiff, on 16th July 2021. In that judgment, the court referred to the suit property as MN/III/414 Kikambala. A decree was subsequently issued on the same date wherein the suit property is referred to as MW/III/414 Kikambala.
2. The plaintiff has moved this court by Notice of Motion application dated 27th September 2023 under Sections 99, 100 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act with the following prayer:a.Spent.b.This Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order for rectification of the decree issued on 16/7/2021 by amending/rectifying and/or correcting the description of the suit property from MW/III/414Kikambala to read MN/III/414Kikambala.
3. The application is premised on the grounds at the foot of it and the supporting affidavit sworn by Edward Toya Farah.
4. Despite service by way of substituted service vide the Standard Newspaper of Friday 24th November 2023, the Defendants, just as in the main suit where they failed to enter appearance, failed to file any response to the application. The Application is therefore unopposed. The Plaintiffs filed written submissions which I have carefully considered.
5. Section 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 state: -“99. Amendment of judgments, decrees or ordersClerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.100. General power to amendThe court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on the proceeding.”
6. The Court of Appeal in the case Leonard Mambo Kuria v Ann Wanjiru Mambo [2017] eKLR extensively discussed the above provisions of the Civil Procedure Act as below: -“The application of these two sections [Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, CAP 21] has been considered before in several decisions. They vest a general power to the courts to correct or amend their records. As such they are an exception to the doctrine of ‘functus officio’-- the principle that once a decision has been given, it is (subject to any right of appeal) final and conclusive. It cannot be revoked or varied by the decision-maker. As the court stated in the case of Jersey Evening Post Limited v Ai Thani [2002] JLR 542 at 550: -“A court is functus when it has performed all its duties in a particular case. The doctrine does not prevent the court from correcting clerical errors nor does it prevent a judicial change of mind even when a decision has been communicated to the parties. Proceedings are only fully concluded, and the court functus, when its judgment or order has been perfected. The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality. Once proceedings are finally concluded, the court cannot review or alter its decision; any challenge to its ruling on adjudication must be taken to a higher court if that right is available”.
7. In this case, I note that although the Plaintiffs referred to the suit property as MW/III/414 Kikambala throughout their pleadings, it is clear that the property in dispute is or was MN/III/414 as can be seen in the judgment of the court and copy of title annexed as part of the plaintiffs’ documents herein. in view of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the decree ought to be corrected.
8. In the upshot, I find merit in the Notice of Motion dated 27th September 2023 and it is hereby allowed as prayed. There shall however be no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI