MUA PARK INVESTMENT LIMITED v KENYA NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2007] KECA 55 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it can fix accidental clerical errors—like a wrong land number—in its own rulings and orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Ruling dated 5th May 2006 and the Order of 19th June 2006 in Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006 contained a clerical error in the description of the land that the Court could correct under the slip rule
- 2.Whether the erroneous L.R. number should be corrected from L.R. No. 209/11214 to L.R. No. 209/11241
Key legal issues
#Correction of a clerical error in a prior ruling and order of the Court
The Court corrected the erroneous description L.R. No. 209/11214 in the Ruling of 5th May 2006 and the formal Order of 19th June 2006 to read L.R. No. 209/11241, the parties having agreed that the correction was required.
The application was brought under the slip-rule provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant and respondent both agreed before the Court that the land parcel description contained an accidental slip and that the correction was required. On that common position, the Court exercised its power to rectify the clerical error in the two documents without any contested hearing, and by consent as to costs each party bore its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal may, under rules 1(3), 35(1), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, correct a clerical error arising from an accidental slip in its own ruling and the formal order issued therefrom, and where both parties agree the correction may be made without contest.
Court orders
#- 1.The L.R. Number in Order Number 1 of the Ruling of the Court in Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006 dated 5th May 2006 be corrected to read 'L.R. Number 209/11241' instead of L.R. Number 209/11214
- 2.The L.R. Number in Order No. 2 on page 2 of the formal Order issued at Nairobi on 19th June 2006 be corrected to read 'L.R. Number 209/11241' instead of L.R. Number 209/11214
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Courts
- H.C.C.C. No. 355 of 2005
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 1(3), 35(1), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules (slip rule / correction of clerical errors)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In these circumstances we hereby order that:1. 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 be hereby 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 be hereby corrected to read “L.R. Number 209/11241” instead of L.R. Number 209/11214.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "MUA PARK INVESTMENT LIMITED v KENYA NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2007] KECA 55 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/55/eng@2007-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.