Steve Onyango v Techspa General Supplies Ltd & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Law Courts, Commercial and Tax Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Justice Mary Kasango
Judgment Date
October 07, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Steve Onyango v Techspa General Supplies Ltd & 2 others, detailing key legal insights and implications for future cases.

Case Brief: Steve Onyango v Techspa General Supplies Ltd & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Steve Onyango v. Techspa General Supplies Ltd, William Kuriah Josiah, Jennifer Njeri Kuria
- Case Number: Civil Suit No. 386 of 2016
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial & Tax Division
- Date Delivered: October 7, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Justice Mary Kasango
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case is whether the court should amend its previous judgment to correct an error in the interest rate awarded to the plaintiff, changing it from 23% per day to 23% per annum.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Steve Onyango, initiated a civil suit against the defendants, Techspa General Supplies Ltd, William Kuriah Josiah, and Jennifer Njeri Kuria, seeking compensation of Ksh 13 million. On April 28, 2020, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the amount with interest at an erroneously stated rate of 23% per day from December 24, 2015, until payment in full. Following this judgment, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion on July 23, 2020, to amend the judgment to reflect the correct interest rate of 23% per annum.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the High Court, where the initial judgment was delivered on April 28, 2020. The plaintiff's subsequent application for amendment of the judgment was filed on July 23, 2020. The court reviewed the application based on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, particularly Section 99, which allows for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Sections 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empower the court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or orders. Section 99 specifically allows corrections to be made at any time, either on the court's own motion or upon application by a party.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of *Leonard Mambo Kuria v. Ann Wanjiru Mambo (2017) eKLR*, which discussed the application of Sections 99 and 100, emphasizing the court's authority to amend its records to reflect its true intentions. It also cited *Republic v. Attorney General & 15 others, Ex-Parte Kenya Seed Company Limited & 5 others [2010] eKLR*, which elaborated on the "Slip Rule," allowing for corrections to ensure judgments accurately represent the court's intent.
- Application: The court found merit in the plaintiff's application, determining that the incorrect interest rate constituted a clerical error that could be amended under Section 99. The court's reasoning was based on the need to reflect the true intention of the judgment, which was to award interest at an annual rate rather than a daily rate.

6. Conclusion:
The court granted the plaintiff's application to amend the judgment, correcting the interest rate to 23% per annum. The ruling emphasized the court's ability to correct clerical errors to ensure that judgments align with the intended outcomes. There were no costs awarded for the application.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was unanimous in favor of amending the judgment.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya amended its previous judgment in *Steve Onyango v. Techspa General Supplies Ltd* to correct an error in the interest rate awarded to the plaintiff. This case highlights the court's authority to rectify clerical mistakes to ensure that judicial decisions accurately reflect the intentions of the court. The decision reinforces the principles of justice and accuracy in legal proceedings, allowing for the correction of errors without reopening the substantive issues of the case.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Steve-Onyango-v-Techspa-General-Supplies-Ltd--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1340_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries