[2012] KEHC 5080 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5080 (KLR)

The court found that there were clear arithmetical errors in the computation of damages in the original judgment, specifically in the application of the 85% contributory negligence deduction to both general and special damages. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct such errors. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5080 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Olive Muthoni Karuri; Respondent: Njoro Canning Factory (K) Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 221 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Correction of Judgment Under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act
Outcome
Arithmetical errors in the judgment corrected; damages and costs recalculated accordingly.
Judges
MJA Emukule
Legal Topics
Arithmetical Errors, Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Arithmetical Errors Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olive Muthoni Karuri

Appellant

Njoro Canning Factory (K) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Correction of Judgment Under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act

  1. 1 Whether the court can correct arithmetical errors in its judgment under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the damages awarded were correctly calculated after accounting for contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were clear arithmetical errors in the computation of damages in the original judgment, specifically in the application of the 85% contributory negligence deduction to both general and special damages. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to correct such errors. The correct calculation results in the appellant being entitled to Ksh 18,000 in general damages and Ksh 1,125 in special damages, totaling Ksh 19,125. The court also held that costs in both the High Court and the lower court should be apportioned according to the liability ratio established in the judgment.

Court Disposition

Arithmetical errors in the judgment corrected; damages and costs recalculated accordingly.

Orders

  • General damages due to the appellant set at Ksh 18,000 after 85% contributory negligence deduction.
  • Special damages due to the appellant set at Ksh 1,125 after 85% contributory negligence deduction.