[2023] KEHC 22522 (KLR)
The appeal was dismissed because the advocates for both parties proceeded on the mistaken belief that the trial court had awarded KES 500,000, when in fact the judgment was for KES 60,000. The High Court found no merit in the appeal as it was based on an incorrect understanding of the trial court's award. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22522 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Miriti M’Inyingi; Respondent: Isaac Mutura
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E163 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Assault, Damages Assessment, Personal Injury, Appeals on Quantum
- 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
Miriti M’Inyingi
Appellant
Isaac Mutura
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in awarding excessive damages to the respondent for assault.
- 2 Whether the advocates misapprehended the amount awarded in the trial court judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the advocates for both parties proceeded on the mistaken belief that the trial court had awarded KES 500,000, when in fact the judgment was for KES 60,000. The High Court found no merit in the appeal as it was based on an incorrect understanding of the trial court's award. The court emphasized the duty of advocates to properly analyze the record and the impugned judgment before advancing arguments on appeal. Since the actual award was KES 60,000 and not excessive as claimed, there was no basis for interfering with the trial court's decision. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- This appeal is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
M’Inyingi v Mutura (Civil Appeal E163 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 22522 (KLR) (21 September 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22522 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Civil Appeal E163 of 2022
TW Cherere, J
September 21, 2023
Between
Miriti M’Inyingi
Appellant
and
Isaac Mutura
Respondent
(Being an appeal from the judgment and decree in Maua CMCC No. 33 of 2016 by Hon. T.Gesora (CM) on 24th November, 2022)
Judgment
1. On 27th January, 2021, Miriti M’inyingi (Appellant) unlawfully assaulted Isaac Mutura (Respondent) as a result of which he suffered bodily injuries. Subsequently, Appellant was charged in Maua Criminal Case No. 1486 of 2011 and was on 07th May, 2015 convicted for the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 251 of the Penal Code. Consequently, Respondent filed Maua CMCC NO. 33 of 2016 seeking damages.
2. By a judgment dated 24th November, 2022, the trial court found Appellant liable and awarded the Respondent damages in the sum of KES. 60,0000/- plus costs and interest.
The Appeal 3. I have considered the appeal in the light of the trial court record, submissions for both parties and cited authorities. This being a first appeal, 1 am reminded of my primary role as a first appellate court namely, to re-evaluate, re-assess and reanalyze the extracts on the record and then determine whether the conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge are to stand or not and give reasons either way. (See Abok James Odera t/a A.J Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates[2013] eKLR).
4. Appellant challenges the judgment on the grounds that the sum of KES. 500,000/- awarded by the trial court is excessive. Respondent opposed the appeal and the appeal was argued by way of submission which both advocates duly filed.
5. Before I delve into the issues in this appeal, I wish to state the obvious that any advocate representing a client in court, especially on appeal, has a duty to analyze the proceedings and the impugned ruling or judgment to understand the essential facts and ascertain the legal issues.
6. In considering those matters, the advocates have a duty to bear in mind such factors as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of an appeal, in the sense of whether it is an arguable one and the scarcity and optimum utilization of judicial time.
7. Unfortunately, the advocates in this matter do not appear to have read the judgment of the trial court for the reason that whereas the judgment is for KES. 60,000/-, the advocates proceeded on the mistaken believe that the judgment was for KES. 500,000/-.
8. From the foregoing therefore, I find that the appeal as presented is devoid of merit the orders that commend to me and which I hereby issue are as follows:1. This appeal is dismissed2. Each party shall bear its own costs
DATED AT MERU THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - Morris KinotiFor Appellant - Ms. Mukaburu for Kiogora Arithi & AssociatesFor Respondent - Mr. Mwendwa for Maitai Rimita & Co Advocates