[2025] KEELC 4995 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 4995 (KLR)

The court found that the reference to Nandi/Kapkangani/2407 in the ruling dated 4/6/2025 was an error apparent on the face of the record, as all pleadings and supporting documents consistently identified the suit property as Nandi/Kapkangani/3402. The error did not require elaborate argument or statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 4995 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rael Mitei; Defendant: Rashid Kipkurgat Too
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
2 July 2025
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E011 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Ruling
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
CK Nzili
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Error on Face of Record, Land Parcel Identification
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Error on Face of Record Land Parcel Identification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rael Mitei

Plaintiff

Rashid Kipkurgat Too

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the court's ruling dated 4/6/2025 regarding the identification of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to correct the error.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reference to Nandi/Kapkangani/2407 in the ruling dated 4/6/2025 was an error apparent on the face of the record, as all pleadings and supporting documents consistently identified the suit property as Nandi/Kapkangani/3402. The error did not require elaborate argument or statutory interpretation to establish. Exercising its jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that the error should be corrected to reflect the correct parcel number for the ends of justice. The application for review was therefore allowed, and the necessary correction ordered.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 5(d) of the ruling dated 4/6/2025 is corrected to refer to Nandi/Kapkangani/3402 instead of Nandi/Kapkangani/2407.
  • No orders as to costs.