[2013] KEHC 3838 (KLR)
The court found that there were clear and obvious errors on the face of the record in the judgment dated 20th December 2012, including incorrect names of the parties, incorrect occupation of the petitioner, incorrect date of marriage, and inconsistency regarding the number and status of the children. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3838 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: S.I.P; Respondent: M.C.P
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 177 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for review allowed; judgment corrected as specified.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Divorce Proceedings, Correction of Errors, Custody of Children, Review of Judgment
- 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
S.I.P
Applicant
M.C.P
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 20th December 2012 that warrant review.
- 2 Whether the names of the parties, date of marriage, occupation of the petitioner, and number of children were correctly stated in the judgment.
- 3 Whether the issue of custody should arise where the children have attained majority.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were clear and obvious errors on the face of the record in the judgment dated 20th December 2012, including incorrect names of the parties, incorrect occupation of the petitioner, incorrect date of marriage, and inconsistency regarding the number and status of the children. The court held that these errors warranted review and correction to reflect the true facts as supported by the petition and marriage certificate. The court further held that since the children had attained majority, the issue of custody was moot and any related orders were unnecessary. Accordingly, the court ordered the necessary corrections and deleted the custody order.
Court Disposition
Application for review allowed; judgment corrected as specified.
Orders
- The first name of the petitioner shall be corrected to read S[...] instead of S[...].
- The first name of the respondent shall remain as M, as per the marriage certificate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Divorce Cause 177 of 2011
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif]
S.I.P……………………..…....………..…….. PETITIONER
AND
M.C.P……………………………….……..RESPONDENT
RULING
The Motion for determination is by the petitioner. It is dated 31st January 2013 and it seeks review of the judgement on record dated 20th December 2012 to correct a number of errors on the face of the record.
The first error relates to the names of the parties. The judgement refers to the petitioner as S.I.P and the respondent as M.C.P.P. It is said that their correct first names are S and M respectively. This position taken in the Motion finds support in the petition. The first names of the parties according to the petition are S and M. However, the certificate of marriage refers to the respondent as Mathew and not Matthew.
The second error is said to relate to the occupation of the petitioner. She is described in the judgement as a radio presenter. The record indicates that when the petitioner testified on 7th June 2012, she described herself as a radio and television presenter. This is also what appears in paragraph 3 of the petition.
The third error is said to relate to the date of the celebration of the marriage. The judgement says that the parties celebrated marriage on 26th December 1997. The petition says that the parties married on 31st May 1989. This is the date appearing in the certificate of marriage attached to the petition.
The third error concerns the number of the children of the marriage. Paragraph 2 of the judgement says the couple had two children, while paragraph 12 talks of three children. Paragraph 12 grants custody of the children to both parents, yet paragraph 2 says that the children have attained majority. The petitioner in her evidence referred to two children, which tallies with paragraph 2 of her petition dated 5th October 2011.
I have perused the record and I am convinced that this is a proper case for review as there are glaring errors on the face of the record. The orders that I am moved to make are:
1. That the first name of the petitioner shall be corrected to read S[...] instead of S[...].
2. That the first name of the respondent shall remain as M, as that is the name that appears in the marriage certificate. The marriage the petitioner contracted on 31st May 1989 was between her and an individual named M.C.P. It is presumed that this is the marriage that the petitioner seeks to have dissolved, and it is this marriage with MC.P that GBM Kariuki J, as he then was, dissolved.
3. That the date of marriage shall be corrected to read 31st May 1989 instead of 26th December 1997.
4. That paragraph 12 shall be deleted altogether as it is unnecessary as the children of the marriage are adults and the issue of custody should not arise.
5. That the occupation of the petitioner shall be reflected as a radio and television presentor.
6. That there shall be no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18th DAY OF APRIL, 2013.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE