[2012] KEHC 1035 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1035 (KLR)

The High Court found that the respondent had sufficiently pleaded and proved her claim for special damages, as required by law. The evidence established that the respondent's sugarcane crop was destroyed by fire caused by the appellant's electrical cable. The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 1035 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd; Respondent: Diana Achieng Ogunyo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 September 2012
Case Number
Civil Appeal 167 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Damages, Proof of Damage, Locus Standi, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
english
Tort Law Civil Procedure Special Damages Proof of Damage Locus Standi Quantum of Damages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd

Appellant

Diana Achieng Ogunyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved her case in the lower court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had locus standi to bring the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages was proved and justifiable.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the respondent had sufficiently pleaded and proved her claim for special damages, as required by law. The evidence established that the respondent's sugarcane crop was destroyed by fire caused by the appellant's electrical cable. The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove that the crop was planted on a compensated way leave or that the respondent voluntarily assumed the risk. Although the damages awarded were subject to deductions for inputs and administrative costs, the appellant did not provide evidence of the appropriate deductions. Therefore, the trial court's award was not disturbed. The respondent had locus standi...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • This judgment applies mutatis mutandis to HCCA No. 168 of 2009.