Karanja v Inter Continental Hotel & another [1987] KECA 74 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge erred on the principles applicable to the award of damages in a case of assault
- 2.Whether the judge erred in compensating only for loss of dignity and not for pain and suffering from the physical assault
- 3.Whether the judge erred in taking the appellant's contributory conduct into account in quantifying damages
- 4.Whether the award of Kshs 2,000 was so very small as to be an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage
Key legal issues
#Grounds for appellate interference with quantum of damages
The Court of Appeal will not disturb a trial judge's assessment unless a wrong principle was applied or the figure is so extreme as to be an entirely erroneous estimate.
Relying on the locus classicus in Flint v Lovell, the court held that a mere preference for a different figure is insufficient. As the trial judge applied no wrong principle of law, the only question was whether Kshs 2,000 was so very small as to be an entirely erroneous estimate, which the court answered in the negative without hesitation.
Effect of the plaintiff's contributory conduct on compensatory damages for assault
A plaintiff partly responsible for an assault may have his pecuniary compensation reduced; provocation may be taken into account in mitigation.
Counsel relied on Lane v Halloway, which barred reduction of pecuniary compensation for provocation, following Fontin v Katapodis. The court found Lane v Halloway unreliable and punctured by Gray v Barr and Murphy v Culhane, where Lord Denning held that a judge may take into account circumstances mitigating damages. The court preferred those decisions as truer reflections of the common law and consistent with contributory negligence principles.
Global award covering both injuries and loss of dignity
The Kshs 2,000 was a global sum covering both slight injuries and loss of dignity, not compensation for injured feelings alone.
The appellant argued the judge awarded only for loss of dignity, ignoring pain and suffering. The court held that on the judge's own wording the sum was global, and that the judge was entitled to disbelieve the medical and viva voce evidence of serious injury, noting the appellant never mentioned injuries to police the night of the alleged assault.
Loss of dignity where the claimant acted without dignity
A trespasser who forces his ejection by refusing to leave cannot claim damages for loss of dignity.
Once the implied licence to remain on the premises was revoked, the appellant became a trespasser who could lawfully be evicted with reasonable force. Having acted without dignity, he had no dignity to lose, as Platt and Nyarangi JJA concurred. The judge's only reservation was that the force used exceeded what was reasonable.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will interfere with a trial judge's assessment of damages only where the judge acted on a wrong principle of law or the amount awarded is so extremely high or so very small as to be an entirely erroneous estimate.
- In an action for assault, a court assessing compensatory damages may take into account the fact that the injured party provoked the assault or was in part responsible for the damage he suffered, reducing his pecuniary compensation accordingly.
- Lane v Halloway does not lay down reliable common law principle in Kenya and should not be followed; provocation and contributory conduct go to mitigation of damages for assault.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Appellant to pay costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Delivered the leading judgment: the trial judge's global award of Kshs 2,000 covered both slight injuries and loss of dignity; contributory conduct of the plaintiff is a legitimate mitigating factor in assault damages (following Gray v Barr and Murphy v Culhane, declining to follow Lane v Halloway); the award was not so small as to be an entirely erroneous estimate, so the appeal failed.
I think therefore that it is legitimate for a court invited to assess compensation to a party who suffered injuries as a result of assault, to take into consideration the fact that the injured was in part responsible for the damage he suffered.p. 4
Concurred, adding that Lane v Holloway is misleading and ought not to be followed, and that Murphy v Culhane represents the true principle.
It is plain that Lane vs Holloway is misleading, and ought not to be followed in future.p. 4
Entirely agreed with Apaloo JA's judgment, adding that one who acts without dignity has no dignity to lose, and that provocation may reduce pecuniary compensation; declared Lane v Holloway bad law.
I would say one who acts without dignity acts with indignity at that moment of time and will, to that extent, have no dignity to lose.p. 4
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the High Court limited to quantum of damages
Relief refused
#Increase of the damages award of Kshs 2,000
The judge applied no wrong principle and the award was not so very small as to be an entirely erroneous estimate
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs - the appellant to pay the respondent's costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It follows that this appeal fails and ought to be dismissed with costs.
I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs and as Platt JA agrees, it is so ordered.
I think therefore that it is legitimate for a court invited to assess compensation to a party who suffered injuries as a result of assault, to take into consideration the fact that the injured was in part responsible for the damage he suffered.
In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount on damages, it will generally be necessary that the court should be convinced that either the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small, as to make it in the judgment of the court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled.
In so far as Lane v Halloway seeks to lay down a general principle of the common law, this decision is less than a reliable guide.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment spells the case both as 'Lane v Halloway' and 'Lane vs Holloway' in different passages
The citation for Gray v Barr appears inconsistently as [1971] 2 All ER 949 and [1972] 2 All ER 449
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja v Inter Continental Hotel & another [1987] KECA 74 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1987). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1987/74/eng@1987-04-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.