Mukhwana v Sawenja & another (Environment and Land Case 60 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3332 (KLR) (3 June 2026) (Ruling)

Mukhwana v Sawenja & another (Environment and Land Case 60 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3332 (KLR) (3 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3332 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kitale Environment and Land Case 60 of 2019 CK Nzili, J June 3, 2026 Between Jacktson Siundu Mukhwana Plaintiff and Protus Sawenja 1st Defendant John Wakoli Sawenja 2nd Defendant Ruling 1.By an application dated 18/2/2026, the court is asked under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Rules to rectify the judgment dated 24/9/2025, in terms of the names of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, by deleting Jackson Siundu Makhwana and replacing it with Jackton Siundu Mukhwana and John Wakoli Sawenja instead of John Waloki Sawenja, respectively. 2.The court is also asked to rectify paragraph 75 of the judgment in prayers (1) and (c) by deleting Land Parcel No. Kiminini/Kiminini Block 9 (Birunda Farm)/343 and replacing it with Kiminini/Kiminini/Block 8(Birunda Farm)/342. Lastly, the court is asked to similarly amend the proceedings wherever such errors appear. 3.The grounds are contained on the face of the application and in a supporting affidavit of Joyce Mukhwana, sworn on 18/2/2026. The plaintiff/applicant deposes that she substituted the initial plaintiff, Jackton Siundu Mukhwana, upon his demise on 20/2/2024, vide an amended plaint dated 1/3/2024. 4.The plaintiff deposes that the judgment has mispelt the deceased and her capacity as the representative of the estate as well as the subject land, hence the need to correct the errors in both the proceedings and in the judgment. 5.The application is opposed on the grounds of opposition dated 17/3/2026 and a replying affidavit sworn by Protus Sawenja on 19/3/2026. It is deposed that the description of the properties has been highly contested in an earlier application for review dated 6/11/2025 on similar grounds, which was dismissed on 4/2/2026; hence, the court is functus officio, in view of the notice of appeal attached as PS-(1) and (2). 6.The respondents depose that the errors alleged are not minor as they go to the substance, merits, and demerits of the appeal, which can only be handled by the appellate court. 7.The applicant relies on written submissions dated 12/3/2026. 8.The court record shows that on 20/2/2024, the application dated 19/1/2024 was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to file and serve an amended plaint within 10 days. The plaintiff now attaches a plaint court stamped on 5/3/2024 as the basis that there is an error on the face of the record. 9.Computation of time would show that the same was filed outside the 10 days. Evidence that it was uploaded to the system and the requisite fees paid for is missing. All that the court finds is a payment receipt of the application dated 19/1/2024 for Kshs.2,250/=. Service of the amended plaint upon the defendants is missing. 10.Failure to file amended pleadings within the stipulated time in law renders a filing of a document outside the timeline incompetent. Be that as it may, the amendment was intended to replace the deceased initial plaintiff, which the defendants herein do not dispute. The leave that was granted by the court also sought to revive the suit under Order 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules. So filing the amended plaint by 2/5/2024 was critical. 11.Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act grants the court powers to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, orders, or decrees, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act says that the court may at any time amend any defect or error in any proceedings as are necessary. 12.The parameters of the doctrine of the slip rule were considered in Fredrick Otieno Outa -vs- Jared Odoyo Okello & Others Petition No. 6 of 2014 [2017] eKLR. The court said that the slip rule is not intended to allow a losing party to relitigate or reopen a matter merely because such a party is unhappy with the outcome of the case. 13.In Rai -vs- Rai Petition No. 4 of 2012 [2013] eKLR, the court said that the rule is essential as a means towards reaching an end, which is the administration of justice. 14.In the application dated 6/11/2025, leading to the ruling delivered on 4/2/2026, the court had been moved under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the judgment delivered on 24/9/2025, while there was a pending notice of appeal, based on new and important evidence. The court had not been called upon to rectify the errors in the description of the parties and the parcel numbers to align them with the parties' pleadings, as in this application. 15.Given the foregoing amendments, the court regrets to note that the errors are self-evident in the pleadings and the judgment. The respondents have not disputed being aware of the same, especially the amended plaint dated 22/2/2024. In any event, the notice of appeal dated 26/9/2025 captures the correct titular heading and the names of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The changes requested will not in any way change the substance of the judgment, but will advance the ends of justice. 16.Therefore, the court in exercise of its powers proceeds to correct the errors on the titular heading of the judgment as to the names in paragraph (1) to reflect the amended plaint dated 1/3/2024 instead of 31/7/2019 and the parcel number to read Kiminini/Kiminini Block 9 (Birunda Farm)/342 instead of Kiminini/Kiminini/Block 8(Birunda Farm)/343. 17.There will be no order as to costs. 18.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2026.HON. C.K. NZILIJUDGE, ELC KITALE.HON. G.M. GITONGAJUDGE, ELC KITALE.RULING DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2026.In the presence of:Court Assistant - MatuiMs. Lichuma holding brief for Mr. Katama Ngeywa for the plaintiff/applicantMr. Mukabane for the defendant/respondent.