Legal Guides

Correcting Clerical Errors in Kenyan Judgments: Section 99 Slip Rule

A Kenyan court can correct a clerical mistake, arithmetical error or accidental slip in its judgment, decree or order without reopening the merits of the dispute. The power comes from section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and is commonly called the “slip rule”. It is useful where the written record does not accurately express what the court decided—for example, a transposed figure, a wrong parcel reference, an omitted word in a consequential order, or a party’s name typed incorrectly. It is not a second appeal and it cannot be used to persuade the same court to reach a different conclusion.

The distinction matters. A narrow correction may be sought from the court that issued the decision, sometimes long after delivery, because section 99 says correction may be made “at any time”. A challenge to the judge’s reasoning, evaluation of evidence or choice of remedy usually belongs in an application for review under Order 45, an appeal, or another procedure authorised by law. Choosing the wrong route can waste time and costs and, more seriously, may allow an appeal deadline to expire.

What section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act permits

Section 99 authorises the court, on its own motion or on an application by a party, to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, and errors arising from an accidental slip or omission. The provision protects the accuracy of the court record. Its purpose is to make the formal document correspond with the court’s actual intention, not to change that intention after judgment.

Section 100 is related but different: it permits amendment of a defect or error in a proceeding where necessary to determine the real question in controversy. Once a court has finally determined the controversy, section 100 is not a general licence to reopen it. In practice, an applicant should identify the exact wording or figure said to be wrong, show where the intended result can be found in the judgment or record, and propose the smallest correction that cures the mismatch.

Kenyan decisions consistently treat the power as narrow. In Mwangi v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2024] KEHC 3283, the High Court considered the statutory correction jurisdiction in the context of finality. Decisions such as Mbugua v Maruga [2024] KEHC 13396 and Transport & Lifting Services Limited v Mbaja [2024] KEHC 12676 likewise illustrate the central question: is the requested change merely correcting expression, or would it alter the substance of the decision? The court looks beyond the label placed on an application and considers its actual effect.

Errors that may qualify for correction

A straightforward typographical mistake is the clearest example. The heading may misspell a party’s name even though the pleadings, proceedings and judgment identify that party correctly. A decree may reverse two digits in a land parcel number or motor-vehicle registration. A total may not equal the figures expressly awarded in the judgment. The dispositive order may accidentally omit interest or costs even though the judge expressly granted them in the body of the judgment.

Qualification depends on evidence of the court’s original intention. If the judgment states that general damages are KSh 800,000 but the extracted decree says KSh 80,000, the record itself reveals an apparent transcription error. If the judgment is silent on a disputed head of damages and the applicant asks to add it, the application seeks a new judicial determination and ordinarily falls outside section 99.

An accidental omission can be corrected where the missing words are necessary to give effect to a conclusion already made. The court will be cautious if competing interpretations are possible. A “clarification” that changes who won, introduces a new obligation, varies the period for compliance or substitutes a different remedy is unlikely to be treated as a slip merely because the applicant uses that word.

What the slip rule cannot do

Section 99 does not authorise a rehearing. It cannot be used to introduce evidence that was available at trial, attack a credibility finding, obtain a remedy that was never pleaded or decided, or reverse a finding of liability. It also cannot ordinarily cure a lawyer’s failure to ask for a particular order. The error must be attributable to the court’s expression or the mechanical preparation of its formal record, rather than a party’s litigation choice.

The rule does not displace appeal or review. If the complaint is that the court misunderstood the law, drew the wrong inference, ignored evidence, awarded an excessive sum or exercised discretion improperly, the applicant is disputing judicial reasoning. An appeal asks a higher court to examine such alleged error. A review under Order 45 has its own limited grounds, including discovery of qualifying new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient reason, and must be brought without unreasonable delay.

The boundary can be difficult. A calculation that contradicts the judgment’s stated components may be arithmetical. A request to recalculate damages using a different multiplier challenges the court’s method and is substantive. A missing date may be clerical if the intended date is objectively established in the ruling; selecting a date where the court never did so requires adjudication.

Documents and evidence to assemble

Start with the signed judgment or ruling and the sealed or extracted decree or order. Obtain the certified proceedings where the oral pronouncement, submissions or adoption of a consent may assist. Keep the pleadings, amended pleadings, schedules, exhibits and any earlier order that contains the correct identifier or figure. If the error concerns a name or registration detail, add the official identity, company, land or vehicle record that was already before the court.

Prepare a comparison that quotes the relevant passage exactly. Identify the page and paragraph of the judgment, the corresponding clause of the order and the proposed corrected wording. A short table can make the mismatch obvious, but it should be supported by a sworn affidavit explaining how the error arose and confirming that the application does not seek a reconsideration of merits.

Do not quietly alter an extracted decree. The court record must be corrected through an order of the court and the registry should issue an amended version. Using an informally altered instrument in execution, registration or dealings with a third party creates authenticity and enforcement risks.

Procedure for asking the court to correct the record

1. Read the full decision and court file. Confirm whether the error appears in the judgment itself, only in the extracted order, or in both. Check whether a later clarification or correction has already been made.
2. Choose the correct application. An application is normally made in the same case and before the court that issued the document. Cite section 99 and any procedural provisions applicable to that court. Do not conceal a substantive request inside a slip-rule motion.
3. Draft precise prayers. Quote the existing wording and the replacement wording. Ask for an amended judgment, decree or order to issue where necessary. Address costs.
4. File supporting evidence. Exhibit the impugned document, the passage demonstrating the intended result and relevant earlier record. Keep the affidavit factual.
5. Serve affected parties. Although the court can correct a slip on its own motion, an application that may affect enforcement or third-party rights should be served unless the court directs otherwise.
6. Attend directions or hearing. Be ready to explain why the proposed change is mechanical and why it leaves the reasoning and substantive result intact.
7. Extract and verify the corrected instrument. Compare the amended document against the correction order before using it. Ensure the registry record reflects the change.

The particular filing format may vary between the High Court, subordinate courts and specialist courts, and electronic filing requirements may change. The registry can confirm administrative requirements, but it cannot advise whether a proposed correction is legally substantive.

Timing, delay and urgent situations

Section 99 permits correction at any time, but that does not justify avoidable delay. Apply promptly after discovering the mistake. Delay may complicate execution, transfer of property, payment of a decree or reliance by third parties. It may also weaken a claim that the matter is an obvious slip, particularly where the application appears only after enforcement has become inconvenient.

Do not assume that a section 99 application suspends an appeal deadline or automatically stays execution. If a substantive appeal may be necessary, calculate that deadline independently and obtain advice on protective filing. If enforcement on the erroneous order is imminent, consider an express request for temporary preservation or stay, supported by evidence of the specific prejudice. The mere filing of a correction application is not the same as a stay order.

Where a corrected figure affects money already paid, attachment already undertaken or registration already completed, the application should disclose those facts. The court may need targeted consequential directions, and affected persons should have an opportunity to be heard.

How the court tests the application

The court asks what it intended when it delivered the decision and whether the proposed wording gives effect to that intention. It compares the dispositive orders with the reasons, the record and the surrounding procedural history. An error that is objectively demonstrable is more suitable for correction than one requiring fresh argument.

Finality remains important. Once a court has decided a dispute, it generally becomes functus officio regarding the merits: its adjudicative task is finished except for recognised residual powers. Section 99 is one such power, but it is not an exception broad enough to rewrite the result. A court may reject an application even where the original decision is arguably wrong if fixing it would require a fresh legal choice.

The proposed correction should therefore be neutral in analytical terms. If the application requires extensive submissions on contested law or evidence, that is a warning that the matter may belong in review or appeal. Complexity alone is not decisive, but the need to choose between rival substantive outcomes usually takes the request outside the slip rule.

Common mistakes and their consequences

The first mistake is describing every unwanted result as a clerical error. Courts can dismiss such an application and award costs. The second is filing only the decree while ignoring a contradiction in the judgment. The court needs the complete record to identify its original intention. The third is asking for vague “clarification” without providing exact replacement text.

Another serious risk is letting appeal time pass while pursuing section 99. A correction application does not convert an arguable error of law into a slip. Parties should decide early whether parallel protective steps are required. Applicants should also avoid introducing new evidence about the merits; it may show that the requested outcome was not already contained in the court’s decision.

For respondents, opposition should focus on legal effect. Compare the existing order and proposed order and identify any new liability, altered remedy or changed finding. If the error is genuinely mechanical, opposing correction merely to exploit it may increase costs. Where wording is agreed, parties can present a narrowly framed consent for the court’s approval, while recognising that only the court can amend its own order.

After a correction is granted

Obtain a sealed copy of the correction order and, where applicable, a freshly extracted decree or order. Check the case number, parties, dates, amounts, property descriptions, interest provision and compliance period. If the original instrument had been lodged with a land registry, bank, auctioneer, employer or other institution, provide the corrected instrument and explain its authority.

Keep both versions and the correction order in the file. The historical record shows why the document changed and protects against later allegations of alteration. Where execution is underway, give prompt written notice to the executing officer and the other parties. Further action should be based on the amended instrument and any consequential directions.

When to obtain legal help

Prompt advice is valuable where the correction could change an amount payable, property affected, a compliance deadline or ongoing execution. Counsel can assess whether section 99, Order 45 review, appeal or a combination of protective steps is appropriate; prepare precise prayers; and ensure the application does not accidentally concede or waive another remedy.

If your Kenyan judgment, decree or order contains a suspected clerical error, send us the decision, extracted order, case number and a short note showing the disputed wording. We can organise the issue and help connect you with an independent Kenyan advocate to assess the correct procedure before enforcement or appeal deadlines create additional risk.