MUA PARK INVESTMENT LIMITED v KENYA NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2007] KECA 357 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal corrected a wrong land parcel number in its own ruling and order, confirming parties can fix clerical mistakes through the slip rule.
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 formal order issued on 19th June 2006 in Civil Application No. NAI. 32 of 2006 contained a clerical error in the description of the suit land, and whether it should be corrected under the slip rule
Key legal issues
#Correction of a clerical error (erroneous land parcel number) in a prior ruling and formal order of the Court of Appeal
The court corrected the erroneous description L.R. No. 209/11214 to L.R. No. 209/11241 in both the ruling and the formal order, the parties having agreed that the correction was required.
The application was brought under rules 1(3), 35(1), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which permit correction of clerical errors arising from accidental slips. Both parties agreed before the court that the parcel number had been misdescribed and that the correction was required, so the court made the correction without contested argument and further agreed that each party would bear 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 clerical errors arising from accidental slips in its own rulings and formal orders, including misdescriptions of land parcel numbers.
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 and delivered at Nairobi on the 5th day of 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 the 19th day of 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
- 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 in the court's own ruling and order)
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.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#The document is an interlocutory slip-rule ruling, not a judgment on the merits; the case title suggests an injunction application pending intended appeal, but the ruling deals only with correction of the parcel number in an earlier ruling and order of the court.
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 357 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Civ Appli 32 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/357/eng@2007-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.