“In our view, the provisions of Section 26(3) of the Supreme Court Act give this Court very wide powers and we think this Court could invoke this section to supply that part of the sentence which the learned Judge inadvertently left out; but it appears to us that this is an error within the competence of the Judge himself, whose judgment could properly be said to suffer from an accidental slip or omission, to correct. In other words, it is a clerical error which the Judge himself can put right and the Court has inherent power to deal with and put right such clerical error. In England, clerical errors can be put right under Order 20, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. In the Australian case Milson v. Carter [1893] A.C. 638; (62 L.J. P.C. 126) where an application was made at the instigation of the Supreme Court to the Privy Council to correct an error made by the Supreme Court, the Privy Council held that an application should be made to the Supreme Court to correct its mistake. In the course of the judgment their Lordships observed: “Their Lordships do not doubt that the Court has power at any time to correct an error in a decree or order arising from a slip or accidental omission, whether there is or is not a general order to that effect. A recent instance of the exercise of this power occurred in the case of Hatton v. Harris (1892) A.C. 547 before the House of Lords, where an error arising from an accidental omission was corrected after the lapse of forty years. The House of Lords in that case approved the views expressed “by the Court of Appeal in Mellor v. Swire (1885) 30 Ch.D. 239: 53 L.T. 205″. In the Mellor case (above) it is of some considerable interest to set out some of the views expressed by the Court, Cotton L.J. said:”But although it is only in special circumstances that the Court will interfere with an order which has been passed and entered, except in cases of a mere slip or verbal inaccuracy, yet in my opinion, the Court has jurisdiction over its own records, and if it finds that the order as passed and entered contains an adjudication upon that which the Court in fact has never adjudicated upon, then, in my opinion, it has jurisdiction, which it will in a proper case exercise, to correct its record, that it may be in accordance with the order really pronounced”. In the same case, in his judgment, Bowen L.J. added:”I think the true view is, as stated by Cotton L.J. that every Court has inherent power over its own records, as long as these records are within its power, and that it can set right any mistake in them ….It seems to me that there is inherent power in this Court to do what is asked. I do not think it is necessary to fall back upon the rules, though I think rules might be discovered which would be found to assert the existence of this power in the Court”. In view of all these authorities, we are satisfied that this is a matter which the trial Judge can put right and we will not exercise our powers under Section 26 of the Supreme Court Act.”