https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9021

**Republic of Kenya** **In the High Court at NAIVASHA** **HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO 15 of 2015** **FRIDAH KAIMURI KIREMA--------------Applicant** **VERSUS** **LINUS KAIKAI---------------------------RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. This ruling is in respect of the applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2026 in which the applicant, *Ms. Fridah Kaimuri Kirema,* sought the following orders: - 2. ***THAT this Honourable Court sanctions a review of the judgment delivered on 28th May, 2020 by Hon. Mwongo J.*** ***ii) THAT this Honourable court be pleased to correct the error apparent on the face of the record with regard to the award of damages to the 2nd Plaintiff contained in the judgement delivered on 28th May 2020 by Hon. Mwongo J.*** 1. ***THAT the costs of this Application be provided for.*** ***IV) Any other order that this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to grant.*** 1. The application is anchored on the grounds stated on its face and the depositions made in the supporting affidavit sworn by the applicant who was the 2nd plaintiff in the suit in which the judgement sought to be reviewed was delivered. The suit involved two other plaintiffs who are not affected by the orders sought in the application. 2. Briefly, the applicant contends that judgment in the suit was entered on 28th May 2020 in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant; that the judgment was sound and judicious, save for an error which was apparent on the face of the record. That after tabulating the damages awarded to the 1st Plaintiff, the court in the subsequent sub-heading stated ***“damages awarded to the 1st 2nd Plaintiff”*** instead of *“damages awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff*”. This was the error the applicant beseeched this court to review and correct to enable her execute the aforesaid judgment without causing confusion that may impede justice. 3. During the hearing, *Mr. Mbatai*, learned Counsel for the respondent conceded to the application noting that the error referred to in the application only affected the applicant. He asked the court to allow the application as prayed. 4. I have duly considered the application. I have also read this court’s judgement delivered on 28th May 2020. Having done so, I find that the only issue arising for my determination is whether the application is merited. 5. The starting point is the law governing the power of the court to review its own judgment or orders. The law is set out in *Section 80* of the *Civil Procedure Act* which provides as follows; ***“ Any person who considers himself aggrieved—*** ***(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or*** ***(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the* decree or made the order, *and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”*** 1. The above provision is operationalized by *Order 45* of the *Civil Procedure Rules* ( the Rules) which lays down the threshold a party must meet to be deserving of exercise of the courts discretion in granting the orders of review as sought. *Order 45* of the Rules is in the following terms: *“****Any person considering himself aggrieved—*** ***(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or*** ***(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,*** ***and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.”*** 1. A careful reading of the above provisions reveals that to succeed in an application for review, an applicant must demonstrate that either of the following circumstances existed in his or her case; 1. That there is no right of appeal against the order sought to be reviewed or even if the right existed, no appeal had been preferred; or 2. That there was discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree or order was made; or 3. That there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or 4. That there was other sufficient cause to warrant the review sought. 2. As stated earlier, the instant application is solely based on the ground that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the judgment in respect of the damages awarded to the applicant. 3. An error apparent on the face of the record was defined by the Court of Appeal in ***National Bank of Kenya Limited V Ndungu Njau [1997] eKLR*** thus ; ***“ ….A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review…”*** 1. In this case, it is clear from a perusal of the courts aforesaid judgment that at paragraph 122, the learned Judge, *Hon. Justice Richard Mwongo* tabulated the damages awarded to the 1st Plaintiff. Immediately thereafter, he proceeded to state as follows; ***“ Damages to 1st 2nd plaintiff”*** and under this sub-heading, the Hon. Judge proceeded to award general damages for pain and suffering; loss of earning capacity and special damages. He then continued to tabulate the damages awarded to the 3rd plaintiff. 1. From the foregoing, it is very clear that the damages awarded under the above sub-heading could only have been meant for the 2nd plaintiff, who as stated earlier, is the applicant in this case. A plain reading of the judgement shows that no damages were specifically awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff and given the pleadings and the damages sought by the applicant in the suit, there cannot be any doubt that the damages awarded under the aforesaid sub-heading were awarded to the applicant and no one else. 2. Ideally, the sub-heading ought to have read *“Damages awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff”.* The sub-heading in its current formwas clearly an accidental slip of the pen and fits the legal definition of an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. *Section 99* of the *Civil Procedure Act* grants the Court power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgements and states as follows:- ***“ Clerical 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.”*** 1. The Supreme Court in the case of ***Outa V Okello & 3 others [2017] KESC 25 (KLR)*** expounded on the objective of the *Slip Rule* and the circumstances in which it applied. The court expressed itself as follows; ***“…By its nature, the Slip Rule permits a Court of law to correct errors that are apparent on the face of the Judgment, Ruling, or Order of the Court. Such errors must be so obvious that their correction cannot generate any controversy, regarding the Judgment or decision of the Court. By the same token, such errors must be of such nature that their correction would not change the substance of the Judgment or alter the clear intention of the Court. In other words, the Slip Rule does not confer upon a Court, any jurisdiction or powers to sit on appeal over its own Judgment, or, to extensively review such Judgment as to substantially alter it.”*** 1. From the foregoing, it is clear beyond any peradventure that the instant application meets the threshold for review under both *Order 45* of the Rules and under the *Slip Rule*. The error ought to be corrected by this court to enable the applicant enjoy the full fruits of her judgement. 2. For the above reasons, I find merit in the application and it is hereby allowed on terms that the sub-heading under paragraph 122 in the judgment delivered on 28th May 2020 shall be corrected to read as hereunder; “Damages awarded to the 2nd plaintiff”. For clarity, the general and special damages itemized under the sub-heading remain the same and are payable to the applicant. 1. Costs follow the event and are at the court’s discretion. As the error necessitating the application was made by this court, I will not make any order as to costs. 2. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **NAIVASHA** this 19th day of June 2026. **C.W GITHUA** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of:** *Mr. Odek* for the Applicant *Mr. Mbatai* for the respondent *Ms. Hannah* *Mbugua*, Court Assistant