Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Originating Summons dated 9th February, 2018)· [2025] KEELC 4621 (KLR)

Masila & 2 others v Krotonite Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4621 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 June 2025
LNL. L. Naikuni
5,703 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~23 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court deleted wrong land parcel numbers from its own judgment but refused to swap them for new ones, showing how narrowly the slip rule works.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, who had obtained judgment on 18th September 2024 in an adverse possession suit over L.R. No. MN/III/5612, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 26th March 2025 under section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking correction of paragraph 70(d) of the judgment. The judgment had directed the Land Registrar to register the plaintiffs as absolute owners of parcel Nos. 2717/V/MN, 2718/V/MN and 2719/V/MN, which featured nowhere in the pleadings; the correct sub-divisions, according to the plaintiffs, were MN/III/10211, MN/III/10212 and MN/III/10213, created by the defendant during the pendency of the suit despite an inhibition order. The defendant, through its director Abdulkarim Saleh Muhsin, opposed, arguing the plaintiffs never claimed the sub-divisions and did not annex certified extracts of title as Order 37 Rule 7(2) requires. The court framed two issues: whether the application was merited and costs. It held that the application was, in substance, an impermissible attempt at review under section 99, which does not allow a court to sit on appeal on its own decision; the proper route was section 80 read with Order 45. Since the plaintiffs never pleaded the sub-divisions and produced no certified extracts, substituting the parcel numbers would alter the substance of the judgment and prejudice the defendant. However, the court found the erroneous parcel numbers to be its own mistake and deleted paragraph 70(d) suo moto. Costs were, exceptionally, ordered to be borne by each party. The application was partially allowed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application qualified for correction under the slip rule (section 99 Civil Procedure Act)

Holding

The application as framed sought an impermissible review of the substance of the judgment; the plaintiffs should have moved under section 80 read with Order 45. However, the erroneous parcel numbers in paragraph 70(d) were an error apparent on the face of the record which the court could itself delete suo moto.

Reasoning

The court distinguished review under section 80/Order 45 from correction under section 99. The plaintiff's pleadings only claimed L.R. MN/III/5612; the sub-division numbers were never claimed and no certified extracts of title were annexed as Order 37 Rule 7(2) requires. Substituting them would alter the substance of the judgment and prejudice the defendant. But the court retained power to delete the erroneous paragraph itself.

p. 11
02

Costs of the application

Holding

Although costs follow the event under section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court exercised its discretion to order each party to bear their own costs.

Reasoning

The court affirmed the general principle that the successful party is typically entitled to costs unless there are compelling reasons to decide otherwise. In the circumstances of this partially successful application, the court elected to order each party to bear their own costs.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A signed judgment may not be altered except as provided by section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act or on review
  • Section 99 permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips but does not permit a court to sit on appeal on its own decision or reopen the substance of its judgment
  • A court has jurisdiction suo moto to rectify an error apparent on the face of its own judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 26th March, 2025 be and is hereby found to be partially allowed in as far as causing the deletion of the contents of Clause No. 70 (d) of the Judgement is concerned
  2. 2.A mention notice is issued for the 18th June, 2025 to enable the Court delete from the Judgment delivered on 18th September, 2024 Paragraph 70 (d) suo moto
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 26th March, 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Masila & 2 others v Krotonite Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4621 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Originating Summons dated 9th February, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4621/eng@2025-06-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.