[2003] KEHC 750 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 750 (KLR)

The court held that the appellant's claims for loss of business and value of her kiosk were special damages, not general damages. Such damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. The appellant failed to specifically plead these damages in her plaint, and therefore was not entitled to be awarded them, even...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 750 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Zipporah Wanjiru; Respondent: Municipal Council of Nakuru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 8 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
ARM Visram
Legal Topics
Pleading of Special Damages, Proof of Special Damages, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Pleading of Special Damages Proof of Special Damages Assessment of Damages

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zipporah Wanjiru

Appellant

Municipal Council of Nakuru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to further damages for loss of business and value of her kiosk destroyed by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether such damages, not specifically pleaded in the plaint, could be awarded as general damages.
  3. 3 Whether the lower court erred in awarding special damages that were not specifically pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's claims for loss of business and value of her kiosk were special damages, not general damages. Such damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. The appellant failed to specifically plead these damages in her plaint, and therefore was not entitled to be awarded them, even though she attempted to prove them during the proceedings. The lower court's award of special damages was not disturbed because there was no cross-appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.