[2025] KEHC 6852 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6852 (KLR)

The High Court found that the appellants had legitimate grounds and reasonable and probable cause to file a complaint with the police regarding missing funds, supported by an auditor's report and partial restitution by a co-accused. The court held that the appellants' actions were not motivated by malice, and there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6852 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Philomena Katheu Matata; Appellant: Green Alliance Limited; Respondent: Suzzain Mwirebanga Rono; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E034 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
RC Rutto
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Damages Award, Elements of Tort, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Damages Award Elements of Tort Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philomena Katheu Matata

Appellant

Green Alliance Limited

Appellant

Suzzain Mwirebanga Rono

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that the tort of malicious prosecution was proven to the required standard.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages for malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the appellants had legitimate grounds and reasonable and probable cause to file a complaint with the police regarding missing funds, supported by an auditor's report and partial restitution by a co-accused. The court held that the appellants' actions were not motivated by malice, and there was no evidence that they failed to provide required evidence or influenced the prosecution's conduct. The criminal proceedings were initiated on a justifiable basis, and the subsequent acquittal of the respondent did not, by itself, establish malice. The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal dated 16th February 2024 is allowed.
  • The judgment delivered on 18th January 2024 in CMCC No. 49 of 2020 is set aside.