[2005] KECA 81 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's reliance on previous decisions regarding the quantum of damages in libel cases was not based on solid juridical principles. The appellate court found it inappropriate to base its decision on such precedents, especially since those cases could themselves be subject to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KECA 81 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Johnson Evan Gicheru; Respondent: Andrew Morton; Respondent: Michael O'Mara Books Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 314 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed as per orders proposed by Tunoi, J.A.
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Libel, Damages Quantification
- 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
Johnson Evan Gicheru
Appellant
Andrew Morton
Respondent
Michael O'Mara Books Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court's approach to the quantum of damages in libel cases was legally sound.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should uphold or interfere with the quantum of damages awarded for libel.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's reliance on previous decisions regarding the quantum of damages in libel cases was not based on solid juridical principles. The appellate court found it inappropriate to base its decision on such precedents, especially since those cases could themselves be subject to appeal. The court agreed with the reasoning and orders proposed by Tunoi, J.A., emphasizing the necessity for damages in libel to be grounded in established legal doctrine rather than inconsistent or unsubstantiated High Court awards. As all members of the bench concurred, the orders proposed by Tunoi, J.A. were adopted as the decision of the court.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed as per orders proposed by Tunoi, J.A.
Orders
- Orders as proposed by Tunoi, J.A. adopted as the orders of the Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
4 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & GITHINJI, JJ.A.) Civil Appeal 314 of 2000 (1) BETWEEN JOHNSON EVAN GICHERU …………………………………………. APPELLANT AND ANDREW MORTON …………………………………………….. 1ST RESPONDENT MICHAEL O’MARA BOOKS LIMITED …….……………….. 2ND RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Aluoch, J.) dated 28th September, 2000 in H.C.C. Suit No. 214 of 1999) ******************** JUDGMENT OF OMOLO, J.A.
I had the advantage of reading in draft form the judgment of TUNOI, J.A. I fully agree with his exposition of the law and the conclusions at which he has arrived. I agree with him that the High Court cases cited to us concerning the quantum of damages in matters of libel do not appear to have a solid juridical grounding and like TUNOI, J.A., I would find it very difficult to base my decision on them, particularly in view of the fact that they may well end up in this Court by way of appeal. I agree with the orders proposed by TUNOI, J.A., and as GITHINJI, J.A., also agrees, the orders of the Court shall be those proposed by TUNOI, J.A.
Dated & delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of October, 2005.
R.S.C. OMOLO …………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL