[2019] KEELC 2651 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2651 (KLR)

The court found that there was indeed an error in the judgment dated 27th February, 2017, specifically an order for double payment that was not intended. The court exercised its power under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct the accidental slip by deleting the erroneous statement from the judgment. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2651 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joyce Nikaore Khamali; Defendant: Krishom Chepmwok
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 266 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Correct Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Arithmetical Error, Correction of Judgment, Decree Rectification
Source Language
english
Land and Property Arithmetical Error Correction of Judgment Decree Rectification

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

Joyce Nikaore Khamali

Plaintiff

Krishom Chepmwok

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Correct Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there is an arithmetical or apparent error in the judgment dated 27th February, 2017 that warrants correction.
  2. 2 Whether the decree of the court should be rectified to remove the order for double payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was indeed an error in the judgment dated 27th February, 2017, specifically an order for double payment that was not intended. The court exercised its power under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct the accidental slip by deleting the erroneous statement from the judgment. The correction ensures that the decree accurately reflects the court's intention and prevents unjust enrichment or double recovery by the plaintiff. No orders as to costs were made in respect of the application.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The judgment dated 27th February, 2017 is corrected by deleting line 2 at page 7 from the word 'and' to 'above' and retaining the full stop.
  • The statement 'and an order of payment as in paragraph 4 and 5 above' is deleted from the judgment.