SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

RYCE MOTORS LIMITED & Another v ELIAS MUROKI [1996] KECA 30 (KLR)

[1996] KECA 30 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
30
Citation
[1996] KECA 30 (KLR)
Decided
26 January 1996
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at MombasaCoramJ. E. Gicheru, R. S. C. Omoalo, A. B. Shah
Holding

Set aside the award of special damages for loss of profits and award costs of the appeal to the appellant.

Facts

On October 1, 1992, the plaintiff delivered his matatu to Ryce Motors Limited for service. On October 27, 1992, the matatu was involved in an accident and declared a write-off. Ryce Motors Limited took third-party proceedings against the owner of the involved vehicle, Coast Agency. The value of the matatu was not disputed, and a consent judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Award of special damages claimed by the learned judge in the superior court
  2. Correct interpretation of the law regarding loss of profits for a write-off vehicle

Reasoning

The learned judge awarded special damages for loss of profits at the rate of Kshs. 4500/= for the period between 27th October, 1992 and 16th December, 1994. The court found this to be incorrect as the plaintiff did not provide acceptable evidence for the claim and the learned judge did not follow the correct legal position.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, special damages for loss of profits set aside.

Orders

  • Award costs of the appeal to the appellant

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Peter Njuguna Joseph & Another vs. Ann Moraa Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1991 (unreported)
  • Halsbury’s l
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case