[2009] KEHC 3925 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 3925 (KLR)

The court found that throughout the proceedings, including the Originating Summons, amended pleadings, affidavits, oral evidence, and exhibits, the applicant consistently referred to parcel No. E. Bunyore/Ebunangwe/1305 as the suit property. At no point did the applicant refer to E. Bunyore/Emusire/1305, which was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 3925 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseck Omutoko; Respondent: Meshack Matayo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 43 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application for Review and Correction of Judgment
Outcome
Application for review allowed; judgment corrected to reflect the correct parcel number; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error Apparent on Record, Adverse Possession, Land Title Correction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Error Apparent on Record Adverse Possession Land Title Correction

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseck Omutoko

Applicant

Meshack Matayo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application for Review and Correction of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the description of the suit property in the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment should be reviewed to correct the parcel number to reflect the property actually litigated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that throughout the proceedings, including the Originating Summons, amended pleadings, affidavits, oral evidence, and exhibits, the applicant consistently referred to parcel No. E. Bunyore/Ebunangwe/1305 as the suit property. At no point did the applicant refer to E. Bunyore/Emusire/1305, which was erroneously cited in the judgment. The court held that this constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. To give effect to the true intention of the judgment and the subject matter of the litigation, the court ordered the correction of the judgment by deleting the incorrect parcel number and substituting it with the correct one. The application for review was thus...

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed; judgment corrected to reflect the correct parcel number; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The judgment is corrected by deleting L.R. No. E/BUNYORE/EMUSIRE/1305 and substituting it with L.R. No. E/BUNYORE/EBUNANGWE/1305.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.