[1999] KECA 132 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 132 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment, holding that such decisions are discretionary and there was no evidence of wrongful exercise of that discretion. On the issue of damages, the appellate court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the award was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 132 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kebirigo General Stores Ltd; Respondent: Maria Wambura Mwita
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 187 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Damages Assessment, Loss of Future Earnings
Source Language
en
Tort Law Personal Injury Damages Assessment Loss of Future Earnings

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kebirigo General Stores Ltd

Appellant

Maria Wambura Mwita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the award of damages by the trial court was so inordinately high as to warrant interference by the appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment, holding that such decisions are discretionary and there was no evidence of wrongful exercise of that discretion. On the issue of damages, the appellate court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the award was inordinately high or based on wrong principles. The respondent had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, and the damages awarded were supported by the evidence and applicable legal standards. Consequently, there was no justification for appellate interference, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.