https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4088

Githinji v Mungai (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4088 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4088 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Muranga Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2023 MN Gicheru, J June 29, 2026 Between Francis Maina Githinji Appellant and Wilfred Benjamin Kamau Mungai Respondent (Being an Appeal from the judgment of the Honourable E.M. Muriuki Nyagah (SPM) delivered on 4th May 2023, in Murang’a CMC ELC Case No. 492 of 2014) Ruling 1.This ruling is on the notice of motion dated 24-11-2025. The motion which is by the Appellant seeks the following orders.iii.That such further orders and/or directions be given to the intent that the amounts payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff be fully and finally determined.iii.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The motion is based on five (5) grounds and is supported by an affidavit of the Appellant dated 24-11-2025. The gist of the grounds and the affidavit is as follows. Firstly, the judgment on record has a clerical or arithmetical mistake which has occasioned a grave and substantial injustice to the Appellant.Secondly, for this reason, there is good and sufficient cause for the amendment of the said judgment and the subsequent decree as prayed. Thirdly, the motion has been made without unreasonable delay. Finally 200,000/= divide by 350,000/= equals 0.6914 Ha. equals 1.7285 acres and not 1.78052 acres. 3.The Respondent filed three(3) grounds of opposition dated 4-3-2026 which are as follows.One, the Applicant’s calculation does not add up. Two, the calculation by the Court is more understandable and correct. Three, there is no error apparent on the fact of the record. 4.I have carefully considered the motion in its entirety including the grounds in support, the supporting affidavit and the grounds of opposition. I find that the following issues arise.i.Which is the correct formula of calculating the size of the land which is commensurate with the partly paid purchase price?ii.Does this formula arrive at 1.7285 acres, 1.78052 acres or any other figure?iii.Whether the court should determine the amounts payable by the Appellant to the Respondent. 5.Regarding the first issue, I find that the correct formula applicable is as follows.The amount paid divide by the amount agreed multiply by the size of the land in hectares and by 2.471 to get the size in acres. The amount paid is Kshs. 200,000/=. Let us call it (a). The purchase price is Kshs. 350,000/=. Let us call it (b). The size of the land is 1.21 hectares. Let us call it (c). To convert hectares to acres, one multiplies by 2.471. Let us call it (d), (a) divide by (b) multiply by (c) multiply by (d). 200,000/= divide by 350,000/= equals =0.5714.0.5714 x 1.21 = 0.69140.6914 x 2.471 = 1.708521.70852 6.As for the second issue it is my finding that (a) divide by (b) multiply by (c ) multiply by (d) equals 1.70852 and not 1.7285 or 1.78052 acres.There is therefore an error apparent on the face of the record. 7.Finally, I find that the Court should not determine the amount payable by the Appellant to the Respondent because the judgment dated 23-6-2025 did not order any refund of the partly paid purchase price to the Respondent by the Appellant. 8.In conclusion and for the reasons given, I allow the motion dated 24-11-2025 to reduce the size of the land to be transferred to the Respondent by the Appellant from 1.780 acres to 1.7085 acres.There will be no order to costs.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANG’A THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.M.N. GICHERUJUDGE.Delivered online in the presence of; -Court Assistant – AntonyAppellant’s Counsel – Mr KimaniRespondent’s Counsel – Mr Kimwere