[2013] KEHC 6630 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs' application for review was merited as it sought to correct mistakes of the court in omitting specific awards from the judgment. The application was unopposed, and the defendant failed to respond or appear despite service. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6630 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Henry Robert Stinson; Plaintiff: Robert Sylvester Morton; Plaintiff: Maria Susana Gardner (suing for the estate of Anthony James Gardner); Plaintiff: Marian Elizabeth Baines; Plaintiff: Aime Dawn Baines (a minor suing by Marian Elizabeth Baines, her mother and Next Friend); Defendant: Vora Plumbers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 2618 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed as prayed; judgment varied to include omitted awards and damages recomputed.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Correction of Errors, Damages Award, Unopposed Application
- 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
Henry Robert Stinson
Plaintiff
Robert Sylvester Morton
Plaintiff
Maria Susana Gardner (suing for the estate of Anthony James Gardner)
Plaintiff
Marian Elizabeth Baines
Plaintiff
Aime Dawn Baines (a minor suing by Marian Elizabeth Baines, her mother and Next Friend)
Plaintiff
Vora Plumbers
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment should be reviewed to include awards omitted in the original judgment.
- 2 Whether errors apparent on the face of the judgment warrant correction and recomputation of damages.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the total sums claimed plus costs and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs' application for review was merited as it sought to correct mistakes of the court in omitting specific awards from the judgment. The application was unopposed, and the defendant failed to respond or appear despite service. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules to allow the application as prayed, ordering the correction of the judgment to include the omitted sums and recompute the damages accordingly. No order as to costs was made since the errors originated from the court itself.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed as prayed; judgment varied to include omitted awards and damages recomputed.
Orders
- The judgment is varied to include the awards of Stg £495,068.80 and KShs 300,000.00.
- Judgment is entered for the plaintiffs for the total sum of Stg £526,835.58 and KShs 4,348,048.30 plus costs and interest at court rates on special damages from the date of filing suit, and on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 2618 OF 1994
HENRY ROBERT STINSON
ROBERT SYLVESTER MORTON
MARIA SUSANA GARDNER(suing for the estate of ANTHONY JAMES GARDNER)
MARIAN ELIZABETH BAINES
AIME DAWN BAINES(a minor suing by MARIA ELIZABETH BAINES,
her mother and Next Friend).........................................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
VORA PLUMBERS......................................................…............................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Plaintiffs/Decree-Holders herein have sought by notice of motion dated 19th April 2013 a review of the judgment entered herein on 8th June 2012 (Nambuye, J). They seek three specific orders –
To vary the judgment in order “to include the awards which were not captured in the said judgment in the sum of Stg £ 495,068/80 and KShs 300,000/00, and judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against the Defendant as prayed in the plaint and as set out in the particulars of loss and damage, the affidavits and submissions filed in the suit”.
That the errors apparent on the face of the judgment be corrected “and the award of damages recomputed to include the sum of Stg £ 495,068/80 and KShs 300,000/00”.
That consequently “there be judgment for the Plaintiffs for (the) total sum of Stg £ 526,835/58 (and) KShs 4,348,048/30 plus costs and interest at court rates on the special damages from the date of filing suit, and on the general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full”.
3. The application is stated to be brought under sections 3Aand80of theCivil Procedure Act, Cap 21andOrder 45, Rule 1of theCivil Procedure Rules, 2010. It is supported by an affidavit sworn by one MICHI KARIMI, a partner in the firm of advocates representing the Plaintiffs.
4. It appears that the application was duly served upon the Defendant. No papers were filed in response. There was also no appearance for the Defendant when the application was heard on 13th June 2013 despite service of hearing notice.
5. As the application is unopposed I will allow it as prayed in prayers 2, 3 and 4. The application was occasioned by mistakes of the Court; there will thus be no order as to costs thereof. Those will be the orders of the court.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013