[2019] KEHC 1491 (KLR)
The court held that the appellant's claim for repair costs constituted a claim for specific damages, which must be strictly proved by documentary evidence such as receipts. The appellant failed to produce any receipts or other documentary proof of the actual costs incurred in repairing his vehicle, relying solely on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1491 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Aineahs Masinde Waomba; Respondent: West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 148 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Motor Vehicle Accident, Specific Damages, Proof of Special Damage, Assessment of Damages
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aineahs Masinde Waomba
Appellant
West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant proved the specific damages claimed for repair costs of his vehicle.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for repair costs due to lack of documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant's claim for repair costs constituted a claim for specific damages, which must be strictly proved by documentary evidence such as receipts. The appellant failed to produce any receipts or other documentary proof of the actual costs incurred in repairing his vehicle, relying solely on an assessment report that only provided an estimate. The court found that such an estimate does not satisfy the evidentiary threshold required for proof of special damages. Consequently, the trial court was correct in dismissing the claim for repair costs, and the appeal lacked merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 148 OF 2014
AINEAHS MASINDE WAOMBA.......................................…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
WEST KENYA SUGAR CO. LTD……………...……......……. RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Judgment and Decree in Kakamega CMCCC No. 506 of 2011 of 28th November 2014)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant had sued at the primary court to recover a sum of Kshs. 471, 128. 00, material loss or damage incurred and attendant costs arising from a motor accident involving his vehicle and another belonging to the respondent. He also claimed for loss of business for thirty (30) days, during which his vehicle was off the road. The claim was resisted by the respondent. In the end the trial court dismissed the claim for repair costs, but awarded those for loss of business and costs on assessment and towing.
2. The appellant was aggrieved by the trial court’s determination of the suit before it, and lodged the appeal herein dated 9th December 2014. He listed one ground, that the trial court erred in finding that the costs for the repair of the vehicle were not proved.
3. The claim in the plaint was Kshs. 285, 128. 00 being the cost of repairing the appellant’s motor vehicle. At the trial the appellant put in evidence an assessment or estimation report where the cost of repairing the vehicle was estimated. He, however, did not produce any receipts as evidence of the actual cost incurred in repairing the motor vehicle. He merely stated that he had receipts to show that he bought spare parts for the vehicle, but he did not produce any.
4. The claim by the appellant was for specific damage. He pleaded the specific damage. He was obliged to prove it. He claimed that it cost him Kshs.285,128. 00 to repair his vehicle and to put him back to the position where it was before the accident occurred, or, simply to put it back on the road. He was obliged to provide documentary evidence that that was the cost he incurred. He should have put in evidence the receipts that he alleged were issued to him upon purchase of the spare parts. The report he relied on was just an estimate of the cost of the repairs, it did not reflect what it actually cost him to repair the vehicle. The trial court cannot therefore be faulted for coming to the conclusion that it reached on that point.
5. I find that the appeal before me is not merited and I hereby dismiss the same with costs. Any party aggrieved by the orders made herein is at liberty to move the Court of Appeal appropriately, within twenty-eight (28) days.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE