[2024] KEELC 436 (KLR)
The court found that the errors identified by the applicant in the judgment and decree were clerical in nature, involving the omission and misdescription of certain land parcels and an incorrect date in the gazette notice. The court noted that the amended plaint and the evidence presented at trial accurately...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 436 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jackson Kiraithe; Defendant: Thomas Kinoti John; Interested Party: Baldev Kumar Kastilal; Interested Party: Quadoco One Hundred and Sixty - Nine Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 73 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Correct Judgment Errors
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Correction of Judgment, Clerical Errors, Decree Amendment, Land Parcel Description
- 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
Jackson Kiraithe
Plaintiff
Thomas Kinoti John
Defendant
Baldev Kumar Kastilal
Interested Party
Quadoco One Hundred and Sixty - Nine Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Correct Judgment Errors
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should correct clerical errors in the judgment and decree regarding the description of suit properties and dates.
- 2 Whether the errors identified are clerical in nature and amenable to correction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the errors identified by the applicant in the judgment and decree were clerical in nature, involving the omission and misdescription of certain land parcels and an incorrect date in the gazette notice. The court noted that the amended plaint and the evidence presented at trial accurately described the suit properties, and that the judgment should be consistent with the pleadings and evidence. Exercising its powers under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court allowed the application to correct the judgment and decree to reflect the correct parcel numbers and date, holding that such corrections were necessary to implement the court's true intention...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application dated 19.6.2023 is allowed.
- An amended judgment and decree shall be issued reflecting the corrections to the parcel numbers and date as identified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Kiraithe v John; Kastilal & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 73 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 436 (KLR) (31 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 436 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment & Land Case 73 of 2015
CK Nzili, J
January 31, 2024
Between
Jackson Kiraithe
Plaintiff
and
Thomas Kinoti John
Defendant
and
Baldev Kumar Kastilal
Interested Party
Quadoco One Hundred and Sixty - Nine Limited
Interested Party
Ruling
1. The court is asked by an application dated 19. 6.2023 to correct some typing errors appearing in the judgment for the implementation of this court's decree.
2. Specifically, the applicant decree holder has identified parcels No.614 and 699 as omitted; misdescribed suit land; and the wrongful inclusion of 629 instead of L.R No. 299.
3. Further, the applicant has flagged off the date of gazette No.2771 as 13. 5.2019 instead of 13. 5.1999.
4. The applicant terms the identified items as clerical errors, which this court should rectify under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
5. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed an amended plaint dated 6. 8.2004, where the suit property was described as L.R No.7143, now L.R No. Timau/Timau/Block 7/1-763, parcels No's 283, 578, 613, 614, 625, 626, 628 and 699. In the evidence tendered at the hearing, the applicant led evidence in line with the said pleadings. Paragraphs 1, 50, and 88 of the judgment are not in tandem with the amended plaint and paragraphs 3, 32, 52, 57, and 61 of the judgment.
6. Consequently, and in the exercise of powers of this court under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, I allow the application. An amended judgment and a decree shall be issued reflecting the above changes. There will be no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT MERU ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024In presence ofC.A Kananu/MukamiMiss Kerubo for Nyaga for applicantMr. Kariuki for 5th & 6th respondentsHON. CK NZILIJUDGE