a. Article 63 (1) of the Rules provides as follows: “Without prejudice to the provisions relating to the interpretation of judgments, the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party made within one month after the delivery of a judgment, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in it” 9. The Court notes that the Supplementary Application did not cite the particular clerical mistake, error in calculation or obvious slips in the judgement to which the Court is called to rectify. The mistakes that are clerical in nature or calculations of sums that are inaccurate or obvious slip having not been specifically pleaded, the Court holds that the application to rectify the Judgment under Rule 63 cannot stand and this Supplementary Application having being premised on Article 63 is inadmissible. b. Article 64 (1) provides that ‘Where the Court omits to give a decision on a specific head of claim or on costs, any party may within a month after service of the judgment apply to the Court to supplement its judgment.” 10. To determine whether the Supplementary Application is admissible under this rule, the relevant requirement of the Rule is that the Court omitted to give a decision on a specific head and then the application must be filed within one month after service of judgement. From the records of the Court, the judgment was delivered on 15th May, 2019 and the Supplementary Application was filed on the 14 th June, 2019. The Applicants have therefore met the requirements as regards Article 64 (1) of the Rules of Court, same having been filed within a timeline of one month following service of judgment on them. The Application is hereby admissible under Article 64 of the Rules and the Court so holds. L. ISSUE 2: Whether the application has merits. 11. Having decided that the Application is admissible under Rule 64(1), The Court must now review its judgement, viz-a-viz the reliefs claimed in the originating 8|Page