Kinshasa-Gombe: a request for the correction of a clerical error heard at the Commercial Court

Kinshasa, November 1^st, 2026 (CPA). – A request for the correction of a clerical error contained on page 15 of a judgement handed down by the Commercial Court of Kinshasa-Gombe, in the north of Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has been examined on Friday, according to a note received on Saturday by CPA. Your court has handed down its decision on October 6^th, 2026, in which a clerical error has been introduced on page 15 of the operative part. The court has ruled publicly and after hearing both sides in respect of the claimant, but by default in respect of the defendant, whilst all other pages of the hearing record indicate that the decision was not made after hearing both sides; that is why we are before you to seek the correction of this clerical error,” the claimant’s lawyer has argued. He has clarified that the proceedings initiated are aimed exclusively to correct this clerical error, and has therefore requested the court to declare the request admissible and well-founded, and to rectify the disputed entry. “The sole purpose of this action is to correct the clerical error as explained earlier. Therefore, on these grounds, this court will declare the present action admissible and well-founded, and consequently correct the error that crept into the decision,” he has added. In response, the defendant’s lawyer, Ms Mwanansefu, has referred to previous proceedings in which her client had sought damages amounting to 887,000 US dollars, before challenging the expert report submitted in this case, arguing that the expert who had drawn it up had not been appointed by the court. This report stated that a sum of US$827,000 was payable, she has said, reminding the court that Sococer Company had not been present at a previous hearing and that the decision handed down had not been communicated to it. In her view, the party was leaving it to the court to decide on the requested correction. Taking the floor in turn, the public prosecutor has requested that the court declare the request admissible and well-founded, considering that a material error had indeed been identified in the decision in question. Following the parties’ submissions and the public prosecutor’s opinion, the court has reserved its decision in order to deliver its judgment within the statutory time limit.