[2007] KECA 357 (KLR)

[2007] KECA 357 (KLR)

The Court found that there was a clear clerical error in the description of the land reference number in both the ruling and the formal order. Both parties agreed that the error was accidental and that the correct land reference number should be L.R. No. 209/11241. The Court exercised its power under the relevant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KECA 357 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mua Park Investment Limited; Respondent: Kenya National Assurance Company Limited (In Liquidation)
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 32 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Correction of Clerical Error in Appellate Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed; clerical error corrected; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
AM Githinji, CA Otieno
Legal Topics
Correction of Clerical Errors, Accidental Slip Rule, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Correction of Clerical Errors Accidental Slip Rule Appellate Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mua Park Investment Limited

Applicant

Kenya National Assurance Company Limited (In Liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Correction of Clerical Error in Appellate Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the Court should correct a clerical error in the description of the land reference number in its previous ruling and order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that there was a clear clerical error in the description of the land reference number in both the ruling and the formal order. Both parties agreed that the error was accidental and that the correct land reference number should be L.R. No. 209/11241. The Court exercised its power under the relevant rules to correct the accidental slip, ensuring that the record accurately reflected the Court's intention. The Court further ordered that each party should bear its own costs, as there was no opposition to the application and both parties were in agreement as to the necessity of the correction.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; clerical error corrected; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The L.R. Number in Order Number 1 of the Ruling of the Court in Civil Application No. NAI. 32 of 2006 dated and delivered at Nairobi on the 5th day of May 2006 is corrected to read 'L.R. Number 209/11241' instead of 'L.R. Number 209/11214'.
  • The L.R. Number in Order No.2 on page 2 of the formal Order issued at Nairobi on the 19th day of June 2006 is corrected to read 'L.R. Number 209/11241' instead of 'L.R. Number 209/11214'.