[2011] KEHC 202 (KLR)
The court found that although two suits had been filed regarding the same workplace injury, the first suit (CMCC 10149/06) was withdrawn, and there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was aware of both suits, given the involvement of different advocates and differing signatures. The absence of an averment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 202 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Global Beverages Ltd; Respondent: Nahashon Nakuti Jairo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 366 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Industrial Accident, Pleadings Requirements, Res Judicata, Appeal Timeliness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Global Beverages Ltd
Appellant
Nahashon Nakuti Jairo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the second suit CMCC 13744/06 was valid in light of the earlier suit CMCC 10149/06 on the same subject matter.
- 2 Whether the absence of an averment in the plaint regarding pending suits rendered the suit bad in law.
- 3 Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although two suits had been filed regarding the same workplace injury, the first suit (CMCC 10149/06) was withdrawn, and there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was aware of both suits, given the involvement of different advocates and differing signatures. The absence of an averment in the plaint regarding pending suits was deemed curable by withdrawal of the earlier suit. However, the appeal itself was filed out of time, and there was no sufficient explanation or evidence to justify the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for being out of time. On the merits, the court declined to interfere with the trial court's findings on liability and...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed for being filed out of time.
- No costs are awarded to the respondent in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
136 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2008
GLOBAL BEVERAGES LTD …………..…............... APPELLANT/ORIGINAL DEFENDANT
VERSUS
NAHASHON NAKUTI JAIRO …………....…….….. RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF
(Being an appeal from the Judgment Hon. Kiarie W Kiarie Esq, Principal Magistrate of 12th March 1998 in CMCC No. 13744 of 2006 at Milimani Commercial Courts at Nairobi)
J U D G M E N T
I.BACKGROUND
1. This is an industrial accident case. The employee/original plaintiff stated in the case before the subordinate court that he was working, on the material day of 16th July 2005, as a machine operator. His case was to deal with plastic holders with a machine. He worked considerable long hours.
2. On the material day, the machine developed a defect. It crushed his left index finger and caused him a fracture to the distal phalanx, left second finger.
3. He then filed suit against his employer in damages.
4. The employer filed defence and stated that the suit was bad in law. All other allegations were denied.
5. It then transpired that an advocate known as M/s King’oo Njagi & co Advocate had filed suit CMCC 10149/06. Subsequently another advocate M/s Billy Amendi & Co Advocate filed another suit on 15th February 2007. It was this second suit CMCC 13744/06 that was being presented and to which the defence was raised that the suit was bad in law.
6. According to Order 7(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules there must be an averment in the plaint to state that there is no other suit that is pending the court.
7. The Hon. Magistrate informed the defendant that this would be curable by its withdrawal.
8. The Hon. Magistrate proceeded to pass award and as such found the employer (who called no witness) liable at 100% for the accident.
9. The quantum on injury was assessed for general damages at Ksh. 80,000/= and special damages at Ksh. 2,000/=
10. Being aggrieved, the employer appealed to this court on 10th July 2008 by the memorandum of appeal dated 8th July 2008. The appeal was admitted on 16th March 2009 and directions taken on 24th July 2009 (by Okwengu J.)
IIAPPEAL
11. The memorandum of appeal being that the Hon. Magistrate erred in holding that the CMCC 13744/06 was a valid suit. It was in essence a nullity and ought to have been struck out.
12. The advocate asked this court to find likewise.
IIIOPINION
13. Where these suits have been filed touching on the same subject matter, Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act would come to play. The first is heard then the second suit is to be heard on the completion of the first.
14. Noting there were two different advocates who filed suit, it is difficult to tell that the plaintiff was aware of the two suit. The first suit signature of the respondent/original plaintiff differs from the suit by Billy Amendi & Co Advocates.
15. The court ought to have investigated the first suit as there appears not to have been genuine. This should not be visited upon the respondent/ original plaintiff.
16. If per chance, the first suit was in order, this court is of the view that the appeal herein was filed out of time. Namely, on 8th July 2008 when the decision was made on the 12th March 2008. If per chance it was filed on time (which this court has no proof of), the issue in question of the plaint being contrary to law should be seen and taken with words of stating subject to fraud and or misrepresentation by another party not know to the said plaintiff.
17. I would dismiss this suit as having been filed out of time. On the merits, I would not interfere with the liability and quantum of the court which in itself was not challenged.
18. The respondent was absent during these proceedings. There would no costs awarded to him in this appeal. There will be costs to the original plaintiff in the suit.
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 AT NAIROBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
ii)C. Omulele instructed by M/s Omulele & Co Advocates for appellant/original defendant
ii) M/s Billy Amendi & Co Advocates for respondent/ original plaintiff
absent
Editorial Summary
1. Civil Appeal
2. Subject of Subordinate Court Case
TORT/CONTRACT
2. 1 Work place injury
2. 2 Employer/employee
2. 3 Employee worked long hours as machine operator
on 16th July 2005
2. 4 Machine making plastic holders.
2. 5 Machine defective.
Caused injury to left second finger,
fracture at distal phalax
2. 6 Employee files suit CMCC 10149/06.
M/s Kingoo Njagi & Co Advocates
suit withdrawn 26th February 2008.
2. 7 Employee files suit CMCC 13744/06
M/s Billy Amendi & Co Advocates on
15th February 2007.
2. 8 defendant raises question on suit on grounds
statement no other suit is pending.
2. 9 Hon. Magistrate states same may be curable
by withdrawal.
2. 10 The magistrate finds employer liable.
2. 11 Liability 100%
Quantum
Special damages
Pain & Suffering Ksh. 80,000/=
Special damages
Medical report Ks. 2,000/=
Decision 12th march 2008
2. 12 Appeal by employer on 25th July 2008
3. Appeal filed 25th July 2008
i) Memorandum of appeal
Two suits filed
CMCC 13744/06
CMCC 10149/06
ii) The second suit CMCC 13744/06
void abnitio
iii) Erred in dealing judgment
4. No reply, no attendance
by the respondent original plaintiff
5. Held:
i) Appeal filed out of time – appeal dismissed.
ii) Liability and quantum of Trial Magistrate not
not interfered with.
6. Case Law:
7. Advocates:
i)C. Omulele instructed by M/s Omulele & Co Advocates for appellant/original defendant
ii) M/s Billy Amendi & Co Advocates for respondent/ original plaintiff
absent
Editorial Summary
1. Civil Appeal
2. Subject of Subordinate Court Case
TORT/CONTRACT
2. 1 Work place injury
2. 2 Employer/employee
2. 3 Employee worked long hours as machine operator
on 16th July 2005
2. 4 Machine making plastic holders.
2. 5 Machine defective.
Caused injury to left second finger,
fracture at distal phalax
2. 6 Employee files suit CMCC 10149/06.
M/s Kingoo Njagi & Co Advocates
suit withdrawn 26th February 2008.
2. 7 Employee files suit CMCC 13744/06
M/s Billy Amendi & Co Advocates on
15th February 2007.
2. 8 defendant raises question on suit on grounds
statement no other suit is pending.
2. 9 Hon. Magistrate states same may be curable
by withdrawal.
2. 10 The magistrate finds employer liable.
2. 11 Liability 100%
Quantum
Special damages
Pain & Suffering Ksh. 80,000/=
Special damages
Medical report Ks. 2,000/=
Decision 12th march 2008
2. 12 Appeal by employer on 25th July 2008
3. Appeal filed 25th July 2008
i) Memorandum of appeal
Two suits filed
CMCC 13744/06
CMCC 10149/06
ii) The second suit CMCC 13744/06
void abnitio
iii) Erred in dealing judgment
4. No reply, no attendance
by the respondent original plaintiff
5. Held:
i) Appeal filed out of time – appeal dismissed.
ii) Liability and quantum of Trial Magistrate not
not interfered with.
6. Case Law:
7. Advocates:
i)C. Omulele instructed by M/s Omulele & Co Advocates for appellant/original defendant
ii) M/s Billy Amendi & Co Advocates for respondent/ original plaintiff
absent