LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Correction of Omissions and the ‘Slip Rule’ – Court’s Power to Correct Record to Reflect Intended Order
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When an error has been committed, it is within the competency of the court to correct the record to bring it into harmony with the order the judge obviously meant to pronounce. Correction should be made upon motion, not by appeal or rehearing.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC (citing Lord Watson in Hatton v. Harris), in Berliet Nigeria Ltd. v. Kachalla (1995) NLC-1851989(SC) at p. 12; Paras B–C.
"When an error of that kind has been committed, it is always within the competency of the court, if nothing has intervened which would render it inequitable to do so, to correct the Record in order to bring it into harmony with the order which the Judge obviously meant to pronounce. The correction ought to be made upon motion to that effect, and is not a matter either for appeal or for re-hearing."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The slip rule allows courts to correct clerical errors and accidental omissions. The correction must reflect the judge’s intended order. The power applies to both trial and appellate courts. The correction is made on motion, not by appeal. The principle prevents injustice from technical errors. The court must ensure that no intervening rights are affected. The rule applies to all judgments and orders. The correction relates back to the original date. The party seeking correction must show that the error was accidental. The principle promotes accuracy in judicial records.