Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELCLPET/1/2024

The Trustees of the Church Commissioners of Kenya, Registered Trustees v National Land Commission & Taita Taveta County Government

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
24 September 2026
JOJ. A. Orwa
2,071 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can fix wrong dates in judgments anytime under the slip rule, without reopening the whole case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Voi (J. A. Orwa, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2026 by the Trustees of the Church Commissioners of Kenya, the petitioner in whose favour judgment was entered on 26th September 2024. The judgment included, in Order 3, a certiorari order quashing letters of allotment issued by the Commissioner for Lands over part of Voi Part Development Plan No. 49 'dated 4th October 2010'. The Applicant sought leave to amend the judgment and decree under Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act to substitute the correct date of '16th October 1984', contending the wrong date was an inadvertent clerical error supported by the record and annexure ZSMN-3. The Respondents filed no response despite being granted time, so the application was unopposed. The court framed a single issue: whether the erroneous date was a clerical or accidental error amenable to correction under Section 99. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Ndeti v Ndeti and the persuasive Auto Hauliers decision, the court held that Section 99 codifies the slip rule, permitting correction of clerical errors, wrong figures or dates to give effect to the court's intention without reopening the substantive determination. Finding the date reference purely clerical and prejudicial to no one, the court granted leave, amended the decree by substituting 16th October 1984 for 4th October 2010, and ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the application.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the error in the date of Voi Part Development Plan No. 49 appearing in Order 3 of the Judgment and the resultant Decree is a clerical or accidental error amenable to correction under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the wrong date of the Part Development Plan in Order 3 of the judgment is a correctable clerical error under Section 99

Holding

Yes; the reference to '4th October 2010' was a clerical error that does not accord with the approval date on the record, and it may be corrected under Section 99 without altering the substance of the judgment

Reasoning

The court examined the record and found the approval date of the Part Development Plan was 16th October 1984, not 4th October 2010. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act codifies the slip rule, permitting correction of clerical errors to give effect to the court's intention. The correction alters nothing substantive and causes no prejudice to the unopposing Respondents.

p. 7
02

Procedure for invoking Section 99

Holding

As no procedure is prescribed under Section 99, a Notice of Motion under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the prescribed procedure

Reasoning

Relying on the persuasive Auto Hauliers decision, the court noted the correction may be made on the court's own motion or on application, and in the absence of a prescribed procedure, a Notice of Motion under Order 51 Rule 1 suffices. The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2026 complied with this requirement.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips in judgments, decrees or orders may at any time be corrected by the court, on its own motion or on application, without altering the substance of the judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the petitioner to amend the judgment and decree delivered on 26th September 2024 and formally issued on 26th December 2024
  2. 2.Judgment/decree amended by deleting the date '4th October 2010' and substituting '16th October 1984' in reference to Voi Part Development Plan No. 49
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be borne by the Applicant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 (slip rule / general power to amend)

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.

a. Leave is granted to the petitioner to amend the judgment and decree of this court delivered on 26th September,2024 formerly issued on the 26th ,December,2024.
p. 8Final orders - leave to amend
b. The Judgement/decree is hereby amended by deleting the date of 4th October 2010 appearing therein and substituted with the correct date of 16th October,1984 in reference to Voi Part Development plan No 49.
p. 8Final orders - correction of clerical error
The correction is purely clerical and does not alter the reasoning, substantive findings or final determination of the Judgment nor does it cause prejudice to the Respondents.
p. 8Nature of the correction
It is a codication of the common law doctrine dubbed ‘the Slip Rule’, the history and application of which has a wealth of authorities both locally and from common law jurisdictions.
p. 7Slip rule doctrine

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 cited as '2010' in disposition, conflicting with Cap. 21 designation elsewhere

minor

Application dated 9th June 2026 followed decree of 26th December 2024; judgment delivered 26th September 2024 but decree 'formally issued' 26th December 2024

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "The Trustees of the Church Commissioners of Kenya, Registered Trustees v National Land Commission & Taita Taveta County Government", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLPET/1/2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6039/eng@2026-09-24

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