Mugane & another v Muruga & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 38 of 2020) [2025] KECA 2166 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let an appellant fix a spelling error in her name on the appeal, confirming courts will allow simple corrections that prejudice no one.
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 Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend the memorandum of appeal
- 2.Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the just determination of the appeal and whether it would prejudice the respondents
Key legal issues
#Whether leave should be granted to amend the memorandum of appeal to correct an error in a party's name
Leave granted. A memorandum of appeal is a document amenable to amendment; a clerical error in a party's name that harmonises the appeal record with the trial court record, introduces no new matters and prejudices no one ought to be allowed.
The court applied its established discretionary jurisdiction under rule 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. Relying on Kenya Nut Limited v Muthoni, the discretion must be exercised judiciously and upon reason. The proposed amendment merely corrected a typing error noted at case management, aligning the memorandum of appeal with the trial court record. No new cause of action, no prejudice to respondents, and the substratum of the appeal was untouched, so the amendment was necessary and reasonable.
Consequential leave to file a fresh record of appeal
Upon grant of leave to amend, the applicants were permitted to file a fresh record of appeal reflecting the corrected memorandum, to be filed and served within 30 days.
The court accepted counsel's submission that once the memorandum of appeal is amended, a fresh record of appeal is necessary so that the record reflects the amendment. The respondents, though served, filed neither a response nor submissions, leaving the application unopposed. The court therefore granted the amendment prayer and gave a 30-day timeline for filing and service of the fresh record.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has a broad discretionary power to allow amendment of a memorandum of appeal, to be exercised judiciously and upon reason rather than arbitrarily, and amendments should be allowed where they introduce no new matters, do not affect the substratum of the appeal and cause no prejudice to the other side.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to amend the memorandum of appeal dated 5th March 2020 to correct the applicant's name from Grace Ndirangu Mugane to Grace Njeri Mugane
- 2.A fresh record of appeal incorporating the corrected memorandum to be filed and served within 30 days
- 3.No orders on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules, read with Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court declined to award costs, making no orders on costs despite the application succeeding
Costs
No orders on costs - each party to bear their own costs of the application
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 prayer sought for the amendment of the memorandum of appeal is hereby granted. A fresh record of appeal to be filed and served within the next 30 days.
I make no orders on costs.
The proposed amendment is necessary and reasonable, and I find no basis to deny it. Indeed, there is no introduction of new matters, nor will the substratum of the appeal be affected, nor is there a demonstration that the amendment would be prejudicial to the other parties.
Being a discretionary power, it must be exercised judiciously and upon reason, rather than arbitrarily, based on humour, or fancy.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment text appears to be a certified copy and contains transcription artifacts ('afiected', 'afiect', 'refiect'), suggesting OCR errors; the quoted passages reproduce them as printed.
The ruling is signed by a single Judge of Appeal (Ali-Aroni, JA) but does not state whether it was delivered by one Judge under a single-judge provision, and the respondents, case number and neutral citation are not identified in the text provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugane & another v Muruga & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 38 of 2020) [2025] KECA 2166 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2166/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.