Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Ganjoni Towers Limited (Civil Appeal E162 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1803 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal slashed a Kshs 30 million fire-damage award to Kshs 20,000 because the building owner couldn't produce receipts proving its repair costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether KPLC was liable in negligence to Ganjoni Towers as claimed in the suit or at all
- 2.if the answer in (i) is in the affirmative, whether Ganjoni Towers proved its claim for special damages to the required standard
- 3.whether the sums awarded to Ganjoni Towers in general damages holds and, if so, in what amount
- 4.whether the sums awarded in the impugned judgment should attract interest from the date of filing suit or from the date of judgment
- 5.what orders ought we to make in determination of this appeal, including orders on costs
Key legal issues
#Whether KPLC was liable in negligence for the fire that destroyed Ganjoni Towers' premises
KPLC was found only 20% liable in negligence, with Ganjoni Towers 80% liable in contributory negligence, because the fire originated from an illegal tapping of a single-phase meter within the consumer's premises; the trial court's finding of full liability was set aside
The court re-evaluated the evidence of the expert witnesses, who were not in concurrence on the exact cause of the fire beyond its electrical nature. DW2's report found the meters and cut-outs intact and revealed a fresh illegal tapping of the single-phase meter, which explained the overload and unstable current. This ruled out a power surge attributable to KPLC. The fire broke out within the consumer's domain, and Ganjoni Towers breached section 64 of the Energy Act, 2006 (Repealed) by the illegal tapping. However, KPLC's meter readers could have detected the illegal tapping, attracting a measure of complacency.
Whether Ganjoni Towers strictly proved its claim for special damages of Kshs. 44,544,986
No; the claim was dismissed in its entirety because no receipts, invoices or other documents proving actual expenditure were produced, and professional estimates do not amount to strict proof
The Director of Ganjoni Towers admitted in cross-examination that every purchase was documented, that receipts and invoices were available and could be produced, yet none were tendered. The reports of the architect and quantity surveyor were no more than professional, speculative estimates of repair costs. The court distinguished general and special damages, reaffirming that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and faulted the trial judge for awarding Kshs. 30,568,350 in the face of the admission.
Whether the general damages award of Kshs. 100,000 should stand
The award was undisturbed in principle as an exercise of discretion but reduced to Kshs. 20,000 to reflect the 80% contributory negligence apportioned against Ganjoni Towers
Applying the settled principles in Butt v Khan, Mbogo v Shah and Kemfro Africa, an appellate court will not disturb a discretionary award of general damages unless it is inordinately high or low, represents an entirely erroneous estimate, or was based on wrong principles or a misapprehension of the evidence. The court found the award of Kshs. 100,000 was neither inordinately high nor low, and therefore reduced it only to account for the apportionment of liability.
Whether interest on the sums awarded should run from the date of filing suit or from the date of judgment
Interest properly runs from the date of judgment because Ganjoni Towers' plaint did not plead the date from which interest was claimed, leaving the matter to the trial court's discretion
Parties are bound by their pleadings, as established in Raila Amolo Odinga v IEBC, IEBC v Mutinda Mule, David Sironga Ole Tukai and Gandy v Caspar Air Charters. Ganjoni Towers' prayer for interest read only 'interest on (b) above till payment in full', without specifying a start date. In the absence of an express pleading, the award of interest from the date of judgment was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion, and Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024 failed in its entirety.
Whether Ganjoni Towers could claim on behalf of the owners of three adjacent plots
No; the trial court's dismissal of that claim was faultless because Ganjoni Towers lacked locus standi, being neither the registered owner nor authorised to sue on behalf of the registered owners
The claim for the three adjacent plots was premised on a demand letter received from the owner of one plot and threats to sue from the others. The court endorsed the trial judge's finding that in the absence of authority to sue on behalf of the registered owners, the suit in that regard was incompetent for lack of locus standi. No fault was found in the dismissal of that limb of the claim.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but also strictly proved, and professional estimates cannot constitute strict proof where the claimant has failed to produce available documentary evidence of actual expenditure
- A party is bound by its pleadings, and in the absence of an express prayer specifying the date from which interest is claimed, the court awards interest at its discretion, typically from the date of judgment
- The mere fact that KPLC supplies electricity does not of itself render it liable for every electrical fire; negligence must be proved, and KPLC's duty of care ends at the meter at the tail-end of its power supply line, beyond which the consumer takes full responsibility
- On a first appeal from the High Court, the Court of Appeal is entitled to reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it did not see or hear the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Olga Sewe, J.) delivered on 4th August 2023 be set aside and substituted with a declaration that KPLC was liable in negligence to the extent of 20%, while Ganjoni Towers was liable in contributory negligence at 80%
- 2.An order dismissing Ganjoni Towers' claim for special damages in its entirety
- 3.An award of the net sum of Kshs. 20,000/= to Ganjoni Towers Limited on account of general damages, taking account of the 80% liability attributable to Ganjoni Towers
- 4.An order that Ganjoni Towers Limited do bear 80% of the costs of the suit in the trial court
- 5.The Judgment of Olga Sewe, J. on the date interest accrues (date of judgment, 4th August 2023) be upheld
- 6.Ganjoni Towers Limited do bear the costs of Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024 and 80% of the costs in Civil Appeal No. E162 of 2024
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Mombasa HCCC No. 35 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (appeals from the High Court; the judgment does not cite a specific provision)
- Consolidated with
- Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024
Relief refused
#Ganjoni Towers' claim for special damages of Kshs. 30,568,350/- as awarded by the High Court
Special damages were not strictly proved; no receipts or vouchers were produced in evidence to prove actual expenditure, only speculative professional estimates
Ganjoni Towers' appeal (Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024) seeking interest on special damages from the date of filing suit
The prayer in the plaint did not specify any date from which interest should accrue, leaving the matter to the trial court's discretion, which was properly exercised
Ganjoni Towers' claim on behalf of the proprietors of the adjacent plots (Plots 294/XX/MI, 56/XXI/MI and 423/XX/MI)
Ganjoni Towers is not the registered owner of those properties and had no authority to sue on behalf of the registered owners; the suit in that regard was incompetent for lack of locus standi
Costs
Ganjoni Towers Limited to bear the costs of Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024 and 80% of the costs in Civil Appeal No. E162 of 2024, and to bear 80% of the costs of the suit in the trial court
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.
Ganjoni Towers Limited do bear the costs of Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024 and 80% of the costs in Civil Appeal No. E162 of 2024.
a declaration that Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited was liable to Ganjoni Towers Limited in negligence to the extent of 20%, while Ganjoni Towers Limited was liable in contributory negligence at 80%.
an order dismissing Ganjoni Towers' claim for special damages in its entirety;
Special damages must not only be specifically claimed (pleaded) but also strictly proved…. for they are not the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of and may not be inferred from the act.
The very fact that KPLC supplies electricity does not, of itself, make them liable for every electrical fire that breaks out without proof of negligence on their part
In absence of pleadings, evidence if any, produced by the parties, cannot be considered. It is also a settled legal proposition that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings
An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the impugned judgment was delivered on 4th August 2024 in the opening paragraphs, but the final orders and the interest discussion refer to delivery on 4th August 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- JKN (A minor suing through next friend and mother DWN) & another v Chege & another (Civil Appeal 335 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1610 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1610 (KLR)31 Jul 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Ganjoni Towers Limited (Civil Appeal E162 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Appeal No. E162 of 2024 (consolidated with Civil Appeal No. E164 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1803/eng@2024-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.