[2005] KEHC 1532 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate's findings of fact were properly based on the evidence presented, particularly in the absence of any eye witnesses to the alleged assault. The magistrate's assessment of the plaintiff's honesty and credibility, based on demeanour, was within her purview as the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1532 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Kihara Kimani; Respondent: Peter Kuria Gikonyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 215 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- ARM Visram
- Legal Topics
- Assault and Battery, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
- 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
John Kihara Kimani
Appellant
Peter Kuria Gikonyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in evaluating the evidence and assessing witness credibility.
- 2 Whether the magistrate applied the correct standard of proof in civil matters (balance of probabilities).
- 3 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the lower court's findings of fact.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the trial magistrate's findings of fact were properly based on the evidence presented, particularly in the absence of any eye witnesses to the alleged assault. The magistrate's assessment of the plaintiff's honesty and credibility, based on demeanour, was within her purview as the trial judge. The appellate court emphasized that it should not interfere with findings of fact unless there are special compelling circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court concluded that the magistrate applied the correct legal principles and standard of proof, and that there was no basis to overturn the lower court's decision. Accordingly, the appeal was...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL 215 OF 2000
JOHN KIHARA KIMANI ………………….……………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
PETER KURIA GIKONYO …….…………….………… RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the Judgment of A. M. Kingoo, RM
in Murang’a Civil Suit No. 76 of 1997 delivered on 7th April, 2000).
JUDGMENT
By a Plaint dated the 10th April, 1997, the Appellant (Plaintiff in the lower court) filed an action against the Respondent for damages arising out of assault and battery committed on him by the Respondent in a bar on 23rd January, 1997 at Kibutha Village in Murang’a District.
The Respondent denied the accusation, and in fact claimed that it was the Appellant who assaulted him. After hearing all the witnesses, the lower court concluded that the Plaintiff had not proved his case on a balance of probability, and dismissed the same. The Appellant has appealed to this court on the following 3 grounds:
“1. The learned Magistrate erred in law in failing to consider and evaluate the evidence before her at all or sufficiently thereby leading to a wrong decision. More particularly, she failed to appreciate that:-
(a) The plaintiff/appellant was first to call elders to arbitrate upon his assault by the defendant, preceded the defendant to the subchief, reported to the police first, applied to the court to be arrested when the police started harassing him, filed the above suit and there was no counterclaim by the defendant (respondent) who was alleging to have been assaulted.
(b) The assault occurred at the Appellant’s premises.
2. The learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to assess credibility of the witnesses before her and in failing to find that the weight of the evidence before her by far favoured the appellant’s case on a preponderance of probabilities than the respondent.
3. The learned Magistrate erred in law in failing to apply the proper test in Civil matters of a balance of probabilities thereby leading to a wrong decision.”
In his submission before this Court, Mr Karago, Counsel for the Appellant stated that of the seven witnesses presented by the Appellant, three had testified that they “heard” the defendant “admit” that he had assaulted the Plaintiff.
Ms Mwangi, for the Respondent, submitted that as there were no eye witnesses, the lower court could base its decision only on demeanour of the witnesses, and properly came to the conclusion that the case had not been established on a balance of probability.
I agree with Ms Mwangi. Having assessed and re-evaluated the evidence before the lower court, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate’s findings of facts were based properly on the evidence before her and that she did not act on wrong principles in reaching her conclusion. There were no eye-witnesses to the alleged assault. Both the Appellant and the Respondent were charged in court with affray, and were acquitted. No one saw the incident. The Magistrate found the plaintiff not to be honest in the witness box. That was based on his demeanour. Only she, and not this court, had the benefit of watching and hearing the witness. I cannot, in the circumstances, find fault with that. As an appellate court, I cannot and should not interfere with the findings of facts of the lower court except in special compelling circumstances. I find that I have no basis to interfere with the decision of the lower court which I also find is based properly on the evidence before the court.
Accordingly, I find that there is no merit to this appeal, and the same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of October, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE