[2004] KEHC 1536 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 1536 (KLR)

The court found that although the award of damages for loss of consortium to the 1st plaintiff could be considered wrong in law, it did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The judge who delivered the original judgment specifically considered and justified the award. According to the principles...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 1536 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Festus Were & Another; Defendant: John Chiliva Wafula & Another
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 28 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record, Damages Assessment, Loss of Consortium
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Review of Judgment Error on Face of Record Damages Assessment Loss of Consortium

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Festus Were & Another

Plaintiff

John Chiliva Wafula & Another

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the award of damages for loss of consortium to the 1st plaintiff was an error on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of a judge of equal jurisdiction under the circumstances presented.
  3. 3 Whether loss of consortium is awardable where the spouse has died.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the award of damages for loss of consortium to the 1st plaintiff could be considered wrong in law, it did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The judge who delivered the original judgment specifically considered and justified the award. According to the principles established in Nyamogo and Nyamogo Advocates v Kogo, a wrong view or finding is not a ground for review but for appeal. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate an error on the face of the record, and the appropriate remedy would have been to file an appeal against the judgment, not to seek a review.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for review and stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.