[2008] KEHC 2201 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2201 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence, such as payslips or employer letters, to substantiate his claim for loss of earning and loss of future earning. The claims were based solely on verbal evidence, which did not meet the strict proof required for special damages. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 2201 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Althumani Ramadhani Mkomwa; Defendant: Scandinavia Express Services Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1473 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment
Outcome
application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Special Damages, Loss of Earnings, Review of Judgment
Source Language
en
Tort Law Personal Injury Special Damages Loss of Earnings Review of Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Althumani Ramadhani Mkomwa

Plaintiff

Scandinavia Express Services Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a review of the judgment to include awards for loss of earning and loss of future earning.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff sufficiently proved special damages for loss of earning and loss of future earning.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence, such as payslips or employer letters, to substantiate his claim for loss of earning and loss of future earning. The claims were based solely on verbal evidence, which did not meet the strict proof required for special damages. The court reiterated that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. As the plaintiff did not discharge this burden, the application for review was rejected. The court also noted currency discrepancies and found the nominal damages previously awarded sufficient in the absence of proof for the additional claims.

Court Disposition

application for review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is rejected.
  • There will be no orders as to costs.