Skip to content
JudgmentPhasiliah Jeptrarus Too AND Felix Kiprop Kittur VS Leah Tapnyanjah Mugun AND Kesumo Maiyo2 min read

Phasiliah Jeptrarus Too AND Felix Kiprop Kittur VS Leah Tapnyanjah Mugun AND Kesumo Maiyo

Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet Environment and Land Court · · G. A. Ongondo

1)    The applicants through Oyaro J and Associates Advocates mounted an application by way of the Notice of Motion dated 20th January 2026 for, inter alia, stay of further proceedings in Kapsabet CMC EL Case No. E051 of 2021 and setting aside the said court’s ruling rendered on 14th January 2026 therein.


2)    Notably, this court delivered a ruling regarding the said application on 18th March 2026. Apparently, there is an arithmetical error or omission at paragraph 11 of the ruling.


3)    The court is mandated to correct the accidental omission under Section 99 of the Civil procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya which provides thus;
‘Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.’


4)    The correction of error is meant to give effect to the true intention of the court at the time of delivery of the ruling. Plainly, it would not change the substance of the ruling pursuant to the ‘Slip Rule’ as recognized under section 99 (supra) and the decision in the case of Raniga vs Jivalji & another (1965} EA, 700.


5)    Furthermore, it is trite law that the main purpose of such correction is to steer a decision or order of the court towards logical, or clerical perfection through the Slip Rule; see Outa vs Okello & 3 others {2017} KESC 25 (KLR).


6)    In the premises, the error at paragraph 11 of this court’s ruling delivered on 18th March 2026, be and is hereby corrected by inserting the following words;
a)    ‘s’ prayers seek to’ immediately after the words ‘Moreover, the applicant’
b)     ‘herein’ immediately after the word ‘interests’ and
c)    ‘the court is persuaded to’ immediately before the words ‘make orders’


7.    For clarity, paragraph 11 of the ruling delivered on 18th March 2026 is  hereby corrected to read;
'Moreover, the applicants’ prayers seek to balance the competing interests herein and the court is persuaded to make orders that best suit the interests of justice.'

8.    Ordered accordingly.


DATED and DELIVERED VIRTUALLY at KAPSABET this 13th day of APRIL 2026


G M A ONGONDO
JUDGE