Kebirigo General Stores Ltd v Maria Wambura Mwita [1999] KECA 132 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a KSh 974,640 personal injury award, confirming that challenging damages without comparable cases fails.
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 in refusing to grant an adjournment
- 2.Whether the award of damages was so inordinately high as to warrant interference by the Court
Key legal issues
#Refusal of adjournment as an exercise of judicial discretion
The ground fails; the trial judge did not err in principle in refusing the adjournment
The refusal of an adjournment is a discretionary act. The Court of Appeal will interfere only where the judge was plainly wrong or the discretion was wrongly exercised. On the material before it, the Court was not persuaded that the learned judge erred in principle or otherwise, so the ground could not succeed.
Quantum of damages - whether the award was inordinately high
The award stands; the appellant failed to show the damages were inordinately high or that the comparable cases relied on below were inapplicable
The appellant advanced nothing to satisfy the Court that the award was so inordinately high as to warrant interference. No comparable cases were cited for the appellant, and the cases referred to by the learned judge were not shown to be inapplicable. The respondent discharged the burden on her on a balance of probabilities, and the injuries were serious.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment unless the judge is shown to have been plainly wrong or to have exercised the discretion wrongly
- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages as inordinately high unless the appellant demonstrates error, for instance by citing comparable cases showing the award to be out of line
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisii
- H.C.C.C. No. 206 of 1995
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court (appeal as of right against the judgment of the superior court)
Relief refused
#Setting aside or reduction of the High Court award of damages
No comparable cases were cited and the respondent discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities
Interference with the trial judge's refusal of an adjournment
Refusal of an adjournment is a discretionary matter and the judge was not shown to be plainly wrong
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
This is essentially a matter of discretion with which this Court will not interfere unless it is shown that the learned judge was plainly wrong or that the discretion has been wrongly exercised.
No comparable cases were cited on behalf of the appellant and those referred to by the learned judges are not shown to be inapplicable.
For the reasons above stated this appeal has no merit. It is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The certified copy contains a garbled/corrupted passage in the sentence describing the injuries, obscuring part of the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kebirigo General Stores Ltd v Maria Wambura Mwita [1999] KECA 132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Appeal No. 187 of 1998. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/132/eng@1999-11-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.