[2015] KEHC 5248 (KLR)
The court found that the omission to grant the prayer for compound interest at 12% per annum was an accidental slip, as the judgment mentioned the prayer but did not expressly grant or refuse it. The court held that this omission falls within the scope of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5248 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kericho Technical Institute; Defendant: Finmax Community Based Group; Defendant: Chairman; Defendant: Treasurer; Defendant: Secretary
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 20 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Amend Judgment Under Slip Rule
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application allowed; judgment amended to grant compound interest at 12% per annum; each party to bear its own costs of the motion.
- Legal Topics
- Slip Rule, Correction of Judgment, Interest on Debt, Functus Officio, Civil Debt Recovery
- 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
Kericho Technical Institute
Plaintiff
Finmax Community Based Group
Defendant
Chairman
Defendant
Treasurer
Defendant
Secretary
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Amend Judgment Under Slip Rule
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can correct an accidental omission in its judgment under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the omission to grant compound interest at 12% per annum was an accidental slip or a substantive decision.
- 3 Whether the court is functus officio in relation to the omitted prayer for interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the omission to grant the prayer for compound interest at 12% per annum was an accidental slip, as the judgment mentioned the prayer but did not expressly grant or refuse it. The court held that this omission falls within the scope of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empowers the court to correct accidental slips or omissions in its judgments. The court rejected the defendants' argument that it was functus officio, reasoning that since the issue was not determined either way, the court retained jurisdiction to correct the error. The court therefore allowed the plaintiff's application and ordered that the judgment be amended to include the grant of compound...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application allowed; judgment amended to grant compound interest at 12% per annum; each party to bear its own costs of the motion.
Orders
- The judgment is amended to reflect that prayer 2 (compound interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the plaint) is allowed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs of the motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CIVIL SUIT NO. 20 OF 2013
KERICHO TECHNICAL INSTITUTE...........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. FINMAX COMMUNITY BASED GROUP
2. CHAIRMAN
3. TREASURER
4. SECRETARY...................................DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants seeking the following:-
1. An order for the payment of the outstanding fees of KShs. 11,261,901. 28/=
2. Compounded interest at 12% from the date of filing the plaint.
3. Costs of this suit.
4. Any other order that this court may deem fit to give.
2. Upon hearing the case, judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of prayers i and iii above. The Plaintiff has now filed the notice of motion dated 1st April, 2015 lamenting that there was a slip by omitting prayer ( ii) and are of the opinion that the slip ought to be corrected.
3. The Defendants opposed the application on grounds that the this court is functus officio of this matter and that the orders sought are not within the purview of section 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It was urged that the Plaintiff should seek an appeal of the decision instead.
4. I have carefully considered the grounds set out on the face of the motion plus the facts deponed in the supporting affidavit. I have further taken into account the facts deponed in the replying affidavit and the grounds set out on the preliminary objection together with the rival oral submissions.
5. Under the provision of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court is given the discretion to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgements, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slips or omission by amending the judgments, decrees or orders by applying the ‘slip rule’. In this matter it is pointed out that this court accidentally omitted to grant prayer 2 i.e. compound interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the plaint. I have perused the judgement and it is apparent on the face of it that this court merely mentioned that prayer at the introductory part of the judgement but in the end it did not determine whether it was granting the prayer or refusing it. In my view this was an accidental slip which can competently be corrected under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is not correct to state that the court is funtus officio because the court did not determine it either way. This court meant to grant the plaintiff the aforesaid prayer. Consequently the motion is hereby allowed as prayed. The judgment is hereby ordered amended to reflect that prayer 2 is allowed. I think a fair order in the circumstances is to direct that each party meets its own costs of the motion.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 22ndday of April, 2015.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
………………………………………………….for the Plaintiff
…………….........…………………………for the Defendants