[2015] KECA 377 (KLR)

[2015] KECA 377 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant bank failed to account for the sum of Kshs. 3,100,000 due to the respondent. The evidence, including bank statements, supported the respondent's claim that the deposits were not withdrawn as alleged by the appellant. The court held that the appellant's assertion of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KECA 377 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited; Respondent: Fazila Shariff-Tejpar
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 40 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
CM Kariuki, F Sichale, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Bank Customer Relationship, Fixed Deposit Disputes, Contributory Negligence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Bank Customer Relationship Fixed Deposit Disputes Contributory Negligence 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited

Appellant

Fazila Shariff-Tejpar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant failed to account for the sum of Kshs. 3,100,000 deposited by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent or her agent withdrew the disputed funds from the appellant bank.
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence was properly pleaded and established against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant bank failed to account for the sum of Kshs. 3,100,000 due to the respondent. The evidence, including bank statements, supported the respondent's claim that the deposits were not withdrawn as alleged by the appellant. The court held that the appellant's assertion of contributory negligence was not properly pleaded and, in any event, was not established on the evidence. The respondent could not be blamed for trusting the bank's chief manager, who was later implicated in fraud. The court concluded that the trial judge correctly found in favour of the respondent and that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court's findings. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.