[2009] KEHC 65 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 65 (KLR)

The court found that while the 1st Plaintiff suffered damage to his studio shop and goods as a result of the Defendants' admitted negligence, he failed to strictly prove the full extent of his special damages to the standard required by law. The Plaintiff's documentary evidence was incomplete and did not fully comply with evidentiary requirements, particularly regarding receipts and valuation. Nevertheless, the court accepted the value of stock as at 4th April 2004, less stock sold and salvaged, and allowed a claim for loss of income for 30 days. The court disallowed claims for repair costs and destroyed apparatus due to insufficient proof. The total sum was further reduced by half to...

Citation
[2009] KEHC 65 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Kariuki Ragui; Plaintiff: Fredrick Nderitu (suing through his father & next friend Francis K. Ragui); Plaintiff: David Waweru; Defendant: Kate Camp Limited; Defendant: Emmanuel Wanyama
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 February 2009
Case Number
Civil Case 1210 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the 1st Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally for special damages, subject to contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accidents, Special Damages, Contributory Negligence, Proof of Damage
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Road Traffic Accidents Special Damages Contributory Negligence Proof of Damage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Kariuki Ragui

Plaintiff

Fredrick Nderitu (suing through his father & next friend Francis K. Ragui)

Plaintiff

David Waweru

Plaintiff

Kate Camp Limited

Defendant

Emmanuel Wanyama

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Plaintiff strictly proved special damages for loss and damage to his studio shop as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are liable for the damages arising from the road traffic accident involving the 1st Defendant's motor vehicle.
  3. 3 How much compensation, if any, is payable to the 1st Plaintiff for the damage to his business premises and goods.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the 1st Plaintiff suffered damage to his studio shop and goods as a result of the Defendants' admitted negligence, he failed to strictly prove the full extent of his special damages to the standard required by law. The Plaintiff's documentary evidence was incomplete and did not fully comply with evidentiary requirements, particularly regarding receipts and valuation. Nevertheless, the court accepted the value of stock as at 4th April 2004, less stock sold and salvaged, and allowed a claim for loss of income for 30 days. The court disallowed claims for repair costs and destroyed apparatus due to insufficient proof. The total sum was further reduced by half to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the 1st Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally for special damages, subject to contributory negligence.

Orders

  • The Defendants shall pay the 1st Plaintiff Kshs.720,572 as special damages.
  • The Defendants shall pay costs of the suit and interest on the decretal sum at court rates until payment in full.