[2021] KEHC 7172 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7172 (KLR)

The court determined that there was a clear typographical error in the date of filing the application as stated in its earlier ruling. Exercising its powers under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court corrected the error to reflect the true date of 30th July, 2019. The correction did not affect the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7172 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Njeri Njogu; Applicant: George Gatonye Njogu; Respondent: John Njenga Njogu; Imani Maai Mahiu Self Help Group; Land Registrar Naivasha Sub County
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Naivasha
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Succession Cause 4 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Correction of Erratum
Outcome
Typographical error in the ruling corrected under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; all other aspects of the ruling remain unamended.
Legal Topics
Correction of Rulings, Rectification of Errors, Land Registration, Succession Estates
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Correction of Rulings Rectification of Errors Land Registration Succession Estates

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucy Njeri Njogu

Applicant

George Gatonye Njogu

Applicant

John Njenga Njogu

Respondent

Imani Maai Mahiu Self Help Group

Land Registrar Naivasha Sub County

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Correction of Erratum

  1. 1 Whether the court can correct a typographical error in its ruling under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the date of filing the application by the applicants should be corrected from 30th February, 2019 to 30th July, 2019.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that there was a clear typographical error in the date of filing the application as stated in its earlier ruling. Exercising its powers under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court corrected the error to reflect the true date of 30th July, 2019. The correction did not affect the substance of the orders previously issued, which remained valid and unchanged except for the rectified date. The court emphasized that such corrections are permissible to ensure the accuracy of the record and do not amount to a review or alteration of the substantive decision.

Court Disposition

Typographical error in the ruling corrected under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act; all other aspects of the ruling remain unamended.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the ruling is corrected to reflect the application date as 30th July, 2019.
  • All other aspects of the ruling remain unchanged.