[2019] KEHC 2875 (KLR)
The court found that the errors identified by the applicant were purely arithmetical and typographical, not substantive errors warranting a review of the judgment. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct such errors to ensure the judgment accurately reflects the court's intention. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 2875 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Mwangi Kinyanjui; Defendant: Cartubox Industries (E.A) Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 83 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Post Judgment Correction of Arithmetical Errors
- Outcome
- Application for correction of arithmetical errors allowed; judgment corrected accordingly.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Arithmetical Errors, Judgment Correction, Special Damages, General Damages
- 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
John Mwangi Kinyanjui
Plaintiff
Cartubox Industries (E.A) Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Post Judgment Correction of Arithmetical Errors
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can correct arithmetical errors in the judgment under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the awards for earnings, cost of wheelchairs, and transportation costs were affected by arithmetical or typographical errors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the errors identified by the applicant were purely arithmetical and typographical, not substantive errors warranting a review of the judgment. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct such errors to ensure the judgment accurately reflects the court's intention. The court clarified the correct monthly earnings of the deceased, confirmed the calculation of loss of income, affirmed the correct transport cost, and specified that only one wheelchair was awarded as special damages. The grand total of the awards was accordingly corrected to Kshs.5,100,272, and the judgment was amended to reflect these corrections without altering the substance of...
Court Disposition
Application for correction of arithmetical errors allowed; judgment corrected accordingly.
Orders
- The plaintiff's monthly earnings corrected to Kshs.1,290 per month.
- Loss of income recalculated as Kshs.340,560.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU
CIVIL CASE NUMBER 83 OF 1998
JOHN MWANGI KINYANJUI...................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CARTUBOX INDUSTRIES (E.A) LTD........................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Judgment in this suit was delivered on the 4th July 2019 whereof awards on both special and general damages were made to the plaintiff.
2. By an application dated the 23rd July 2019, the plaintiff has urged the court that there are arithmetical errors in respect of the awards that need to be corrected. However, the application is brought under Order 45 rule 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rulesthat deal with matters of review of an order or judgment on account of discovery of new and important matter of evidence which was not within the parties knowledge, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any sufficient reason.
3. I have considered the supporting affidavit and grounds for the application. What comes out clearly is that the applicant seeks to have some figures in the awards corrected, being of arithmetical nature, and not review of the judgment.
Indeed both parties who appeared before me, Mr. Wanjohi holding brief for Kimani for the applicant and Mr. Kahiga Advocate for the Respondent, were in agreement and urged the court to correct the errors, if any in respect of three items, being:
(1) Earnings of the deceased
(2) Cost of wheelchairs, whether one or two
(3) Transportation costs to and from hospital
4. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21is the appropriate legal provision. It allows a court to correct arithmetical errors in an order or judgment but, not for purpose of reviewing the same, but in line and intent of the trial court. This is what I shall do herebelow.
5. Paragraph 53 of the Judgment. The plaintiff testified that his salary was Kshs.1,290/= per month, and not Kshs.11,290/=. This typographical error is corrected.
Paragraph 54: Loss of income is correctly worked out as 1290 X 12 X 22 = 340,560/=.
Paragraph 56:Transport.The court applied a transport cost of Kshs.1,000/= per week, not 1,500/=. Nothing to correct. No error at all.
Paragraph 63 – Future medical expenses on wheelchair, not allowed.
The court was clear that the deceased died on his sixth year after the accident.
Paragraph 57 and 60
Only one wheel chair was allowed. That was the first chair at Kshs.63,260/=, as a special damage.
That was the intention of the court. The two paragraphs are therefore corrected to mean, only one chair, not two.
This is evidently so, and correct as reflected in the final awards stated at paragraph 63 (f) of the judgment. General damages is corrected to read Kshs.4,996,490.
6. The Grand total of the awards is corrected to read as Kshs.5,100,272/=.
It is so ordered.
Delivered, signed and dated at Nakuru this 22nd Day of October 2019.
……………………………….
J.N. MULWA
JUDGE