[2019] KEHC 4555 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 4555 (KLR)

The appellate court found that the respondent failed to strictly prove special damages as required by law. The worksheets produced as evidence of loss of business earnings were not sufficient proof, as they lacked accounting credibility and were not prepared by an expert. The trial court erred in relying on these...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 4555 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: The County Council of Murang’a; Respondent: Philip W. Kimani Waiganjo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 133 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Judges
LN Mutende
Legal Topics
Special Damages, Proof of Loss, Loss of Business Earnings, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Special Damages Proof of Loss Loss of Business Earnings Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The County Council of Murang’a

Appellant

Philip W. Kimani Waiganjo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in awarding special damages that were not specifically pleaded or strictly proved.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence produced by the respondent was sufficient to prove loss of business earnings.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court properly applied the legal principles regarding proof of special damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the respondent failed to strictly prove special damages as required by law. The worksheets produced as evidence of loss of business earnings were not sufficient proof, as they lacked accounting credibility and were not prepared by an expert. The trial court erred in relying on these documents to award special damages. The appellate court held that without credible and precise evidence of loss, the claim for special damages could not stand, and the suit should have been dismissed. The appeal was therefore allowed, the lower court's decision set aside, and the respondent's suit dismissed with costs to the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the suit with costs at the lower court.
  • The appellant shall have costs of this appeal.