[2018] KEHC 3640 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the trial court properly considered the respondent's case in light of established legal principles regarding malicious prosecution. The appellant's failure to attend court and challenge the respondent's evidence meant there was no basis for the trial court to doubt the respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mwiti Mugambi Marete; Respondent: Juliet Kanario
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 31 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; lower court judgment upheld
- Legal Topics
- Malicious Prosecution, General Damages, Special Damages
- 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
Mwiti Mugambi Marete
Appellant
Juliet Kanario
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages for malicious prosecution to the respondent.
- 2 Whether the appellant's failure to attend and controvert the respondent's evidence affected the outcome of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the trial court properly considered the respondent's case in light of established legal principles regarding malicious prosecution. The appellant's failure to attend court and challenge the respondent's evidence meant there was no basis for the trial court to doubt the respondent's claims. The appellate court held that the respondent had proved her case on a balance of probabilities, and the trial court's award of general and special damages was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; lower court judgment upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The trial court's determination is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO. 31 OF 2018
MWITI MUGAMBI MARETE..............................APPELANT
VS
JULIET KANARIO .........................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Mwiti Mugambi Marete appealed against the decision of the trial court in Meru Chief Magistrates court civil case no. 354 of 2011.
Wherein the trial magistrate awarded Kshs 500,000/- to the plaintiff as general damages for instigating malicious prosecution against the Respondent herein without reasonable cause, Kshs 17,000/= was also awarded as special damages and the appellant was condemned to pay costs and interest at court rates.
I have looked at the proceedings in the lower court and the submission by parties herein and it is apparent the defendants/appellants never appeared in court to controvert the allegations made by the Respondent in her claim for damages. The Respondent produced proceedings in the criminal trial that were self explanatory and the trial court had nothing against which to analyse the Respondents evidence.
It is the view of this appellate court that the trial court critically considered the Respondents case against the well known legal principles and arrived at a reasonable conclusion that the Respondent had proved his case on a balance of probabilities. I think it is too late in the day for the appellant to litigate at this stage through submissions when he failed to attend so that his contention could be tested by the Respondent through cross examination in the same way that the Respondent was cross examined.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the trial courts determination upheld. The appellant shall pay costs of appeal. Orders accordingly.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN COURT ON 27TH SEPTEMBER 2018.
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
C/A:-
Appellant:- Mr Kimathi Advocate for Appellant
Applicant:- Mr Nyaga Advocate holding brief for Mutuma for Respondent.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE