[2015] KEHC 5497 (KLR)
The court found that the alleged error in the computation of house allowance was not an arithmetical or clerical mistake but would require reopening the case and introducing new evidence, which is not permissible at this stage. The document relied upon by the applicant (annexture TKK1) was not produced or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5497 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Titus Korir Komen; Defendant: Lake Basin Development Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 156 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Correct Computation in Previous Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Arithmetical Mistake, Correction of Judgment, House Allowance Computation
- 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
Titus Korir Komen
Plaintiff
Lake Basin Development Authority
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Correct Computation in Previous Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court made an arithmetical error in computing the plaintiff's house allowance in the ruling of 16th May 2012.
- 2 Whether the court can correct the alleged error under section 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the alleged error in the computation of house allowance was not an arithmetical or clerical mistake but would require reopening the case and introducing new evidence, which is not permissible at this stage. The document relied upon by the applicant (annexture TKK1) was not produced or authenticated during the substantive hearing, and its authenticity was not established. Therefore, the court declined to alter the house allowance figure from Kshs. 5,000 to Kshs. 25,000, as doing so would fundamentally change the outcome and was not within the scope of correction allowed under sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to correct the computation of house allowance is disallowed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 156 OF 2004
TITUS KORIR KOMEN…………………….......……….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LAKE BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY………………............DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
In his notice of motion dated 10-9-2012 the plaintiff prayed for the following orders:
spent.
the court be pleased to correct the computation of the figures/arithmetics in the ruling of 16th May 2012 in respect of House Allowance in which the court used Kshs. 5000/= instead of Kshs. 25,000/= for a period of 63 months, and the total amount payable be computed accordingly.
the court be pleased to amend the final amount payable to reflect the correction.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant sworn on 10-9-2012. The basic argument by the applicant is simply that this court in arriving at its ruling ought to have applied a figure of Kshs. 25,000/= instead of Kshs. 5000/= which resulted in him being paid Kshs. 315,000/= instead of Kshs. 1,575,000/=. He attached annexture TKK1 a circular from the defendant/respondent which according to the applicant placed him at job group B and therefore entitled to house allowance of Kshs. 25,000/=.
The respondent on the other hand opposed the application by filing grounds of opposition dated 21-12-2012 where it argued that the application is an abuse of the court process and that the error was not a mathematical one but so fundamental that it ought to be a ground of appeal.
The applicant did file written submissions as ordered by the court. The defendant/respondent did not. I have perused the application together with the attached annexture. I have equally perused the applicant's written submissions.
The question that ought to be answered is whether the applicant was entitled to house allowance as at the time he was retrenched and if so how much was it. From this court's impugned ruling, the house allowance pursuant to the applicant's produced payslip was Kshs. 5000/=. According to annexture D Exh 2 (Retrenchment Posts and Financial Implication) the applicant was in job group B earning house allowance of Kshs. 5000/=. Annexture TKK1 in the application herein was not produced as a piece of evidence. Neither is its authenticity explained. It does not bear any date or signature from the relevant office or authority. It is difficult therefore for this court to rely on the same as it would, in my humble opinion, be opening a new line of evidence altogether.
Indeed if the applicant intended to rely on the same, then there was nothing difficult for it to have been produced during the substantive hearing.
Without therefore belabouring the issue, I do not think that it would be proper to change the house allowance from Kshs. 5000/= to Kshs. 25,000/= as proposed by the applicant. That would fundamentally alter the landscape and it would mean reopening the matter afresh. I do agree that pursuant to section 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act this court has the jurisdiction to alter any authentic error, but as found above the same is not arithmetic.
I shall therefore disallow the application with no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 20th day of April, 2015.
H.K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE