RULING OF THE COURT.
 On 27th November 2006, this Court delivered a ruling in an interlocutory
application made under the above mentioned Reference by the above named
claimants, granting, inter alia, an interim injunction. Pursuant to r.67 of
the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure (the Court Rules), the
Registrar extracted and signed an order from the ruling embodying the
 By a Notice of Motion dated 30th November 2006, George Nangale, the
above mentioned applicant, applied as an interested person under r.68(2) of
the Court Rules, for an order that the said extracted order be corrected to
correspond with the decision of the Court, which it purports to embody. The
grounds of the application are that
1. the extracted order is wider than the ruling of the Court;
2. the said order has paralysed all activities of the East African
Legislative Assembly (EALA) contrary to the ruling of the Court;
3. it is in the interest of justice to allow the application.
 The application is supported by an affidavit of the Applicant, who
deponed, inter alia, that
He is a member of the EALA representing Tanzania;
In a letter dated 27th November 2006, to all Members the Clerk to the EALA
suspended the activities of the EALA on the basis of the Court order
At a meeting addressed by the Deputy Secretaries General, the Members were
informed that there was no Assembly and that there were no members of the
He read the judgment (sic) of the Court and found that the said order is
at variance with it.
 The Claimants as well as the 3 rd and 4th Respondents opposed the
application on the grounds that the extracted order embodies and is not
wider than the ruling.
 Through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Patrick Gichuru Gichohi, Deputy
Clerk of the Kenya National Assembly, the 1st Respondent, while conceding
that the extracted order was wrongly drawn in some respects, contended that
the application lacked merit in that the inability of the EALA to function
arises from the ruling and not from any error in extracting the order.
 At the hearing of the application, Mr. Ogalo Wandera, learned counsel
for the Applicant highlighted the contents of the extracted order that were
not part of the ruling and whose inclusion gave the extracted order an
erroneously wider scope than that expressed in the ruling of the Court. He
maintained that because of the inclusion of those extraneous matters the
order has been applied to aspects, such as the EALA members' privileges,
which were not in the Court's contemplation in its ruling. He submitted that
the court ought to correct any error in its order even if it be minor, and
he stressed that in the instant case the variance between the ruling and the
extracted order warranted correction by expunging the extraneous contents.
 Mr. Mutula Kilonzo S.C., learned counsel for the Claimants, submitted
that the ruling and the extracted order should not be read in isolation of
the prayers in respect of which the ruling was made and the interim
injunction was granted. The expressions in the order objected to by the
Applicants, were the expressions employed in the prayer for the injunction.
He maintained that the extracted order was on all fours with the ruling. Mr.
Wanjuki Muchemi, the learned Solicitor General of Kenya, who appeared for
the 1st Respondent, associated himself with the submissions of Mr. Mutula
Kilonzo and stressed that there was no disparity between the ruling and the
extracted order. Mr. Kaahwa, the learned Counsel to the Community, who
represented the 3rd and 4th Respondents, framed two questions which the
court has to consider in an application for correction of an extracted order,
namely: 1) whether the extracted order embodies the Court's decision in
accordance with r.67 of the Court Rules; and 2) whether the order contains
grave mistakes. He answered the first in the affirmative and the second in
the negative and submitted that there was no cause for correction of the
order. He relied on Moore vs. Buchanan and Another (1967) 3 All ER 273, for
the proposition that only a grave mistake in an order warrants correction.
 Rule 67 of the Court Rules requires every decision of this Court to be
embodied in an order and directs that such order shall -
be dated as of the date the decision was delivered;
contain particulars of the case; and
specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the case.
 The decision in issue in this application is the ruling this Court
delivered on 27th November 2006. The ruling relates to the Claimants'
application under the Reference, for an interim injunction and to the
Respondents' preliminary objections. The correction sought in this
application, however, relates only to the relief of an interim injunction,
which the Court granted not in the terms of the application but in the
"Accordingly, we hereby grant an interim injunction restraining the 3rd and
4th Respondents from recognizing the following persons as duly elected
Members of the EALA or permitting them to participate in any function of the
EALA until the final determination of the reference. "
 That was followed by the list of names of the nine persons submitted to
the 4th Respondent as the Members of the EALA elected by the Kenya National
 The part of the order extracted and signed by the Registrar relevant to
this application reads as follows
"ITIS HEREBY ORDERED:
2. THAT pending the hearing and final determination of the reference herein,
the 3rd and 4th Respondents are hereby restrained and prohibited from
assembling, convening, recognizing, administering oath of office or
otherwise howsoever presiding over or participating in election of the
Speaker or issuing any notification in recognition of the following persons:
Messrs (names of the 9 persons) as nominated representatives of the Republic
of Kenya to the EALA." (Emphasis is added)
 Much as we may agree with learned counsel for the Claimants and the
Respondents that in substance both the order as pronounced in the ruling and
as extracted amount to an interim injunction with restraints and
prohibitions directed to the 3rd and 4th Respondents in respect of the nine
named persons, the restraints and prohibitions are at such variance that it
cannot be appropriately said that the latter was extracted from the former
in compliance with r. 67 of the Court Rules. We note the explanation
volunteered by learned counsel for the Claimants that some of the wording in
the extracted order originate from the prayers in the Claimants' motion. In
our view that per se contradicts r.67 which requires the order to embody the
decision of the Court not the pleadings or prayers of the parties. What is
more, we are constrained to observe, without discussing in detail, that far
from clarifying the relief granted, as required under r.67, the added
wording has the tendency of confusing it.
 The Court's power to correct errors in its judgments and orders is
provided for under r.68 of the Court Rules. Sub-rule (1), provides for
correction of judgments. Sub-rule (2), under which this application is
"An order of the Court may at any time be corrected by the Court either of
its own motion or on application by any interested person if it does not
correspond with the judgment it purports to embody or, where the judgment
has been corrected under sub-rule (1), with the judgment as corrected. "
 Clearly, this is a discretionary power. While ordinarily the Court
ought to correct an order that does not correspond with the judgment it
purports to embody, the Court retains the discretion to refuse to correct
its order in appropriate circumstances. In Moore vs. Buchanan (supra) the
English Court of Appeal, applying the equivalent rules under the R.S.C.,
held that there was discretion to refuse to correct an error in an order "wherever
something had intervened subsequently which rendered it inexpedient or
inequitable to make the correction. " We are of a similar view in respect of
r.68 (2) of the Court Rules, and would exercise the discretion on the same
 In the instant case, we are satisfied that the extracted order does not
correspond to the ruling it purports to embody. The parties opposing the
application have not shown that it would be inexpedient or inequitable to
correct the extracted order so as to make it correspond to the ruling.
Indeed learned counsel for the Claimants conceded that no harm would arise
from the proposed correction.
 For these reasons we allow the application and direct that the
extracted order be corrected to correspond and be in the terms of the
reliefs granted in the ruling of this Court dated 27th November 2006. We
make no orders as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Arusha this day of 2007