[2015] KEHC 4695 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 4695 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to strictly prove his claim for the full amount of Kshs. 62,500 as required for special damages. The only contributions strictly proved by documentary evidence were Kshs. 200 in October 1994 and Kshs. 500 in November 2003, totaling Kshs. 700. The trial magistrate was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 4695 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Haggai Paul Obuya; Respondent: The Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer & The Executive Secretary KNUT Busia (on behalf of KNUT Education Scheme)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 20 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Damages, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Special Damages Burden of Proof Appellate Review

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haggai Paul Obuya

Appellant

The Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer & The Executive Secretary KNUT Busia (on behalf of KNUT Education Scheme)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant strictly proved his claim for refund of Kshs. 62,500 as special damages.
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in awarding only Kshs. 2,000 to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to strictly prove his claim for the full amount of Kshs. 62,500 as required for special damages. The only contributions strictly proved by documentary evidence were Kshs. 200 in October 1994 and Kshs. 500 in November 2003, totaling Kshs. 700. The trial magistrate was generous in awarding Kshs. 2,000, and in the absence of a cross-appeal, the appellant must accept that outcome. The appeal was therefore dismissed as the appellant did not meet the evidentiary threshold for special damages.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.