Braeburn Limited v Nairobi City Council & another (Civil Appeal 275 of 2018) [2023] KECA 541 (KLR) (12 May 2023) (Judgment)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 541
- Citation
- [2023] KECA 541 (KLR)
- Decided
- 12 May 2023
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (J. K. Sergon, J.) delivered on 6th April 2018 in H.C.C.C No. 1034 of 2004CoramGW NGENYE-MACHARIA, K. Sergon, Khamoni, Kneller, Sergon, Villiers
Holding
The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's judgment is set aside. The 1st respondent is ordered to pay the appellant Kshs 2,000,000 in damages.
Facts
In 2003, the Nairobi City Council published notices in newspapers stating that Braeburn Limited was indebted to the council in rates arrears. The appellant disputed these notices and demanded retraction and a public apology. The appellant later provided proof of payment for the year 1993, but the council did not credit the account. The appellant sued for an apology, damages for defamation, and costs.
Issues
- Whether the appellant suffered actual financial loss due to the defamatory notice
- Whether the award of Kshs 1,000,000 in damages by the High Court was inordinately low
Reasoning
The court finds no evidence of actual financial loss and assesses damages at Kshs 2,000,000, finding the original award of Kshs 1,000,000 to be inordinately low.
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Orders
- The judgment and decree of the High Court be and is hereby set aside
- The 1st respondent do pay to the appellant damages hereby assessed in the sum of Kshs 2,000,000
- The appellant’s costs of the appeal be borne by the 1st respondent
- The 2nd respondent do bear their own costs of the appeal
Remedies
- Damages of Kshs 2,000,000
Authorities cited
Cases cited (2)
- Butt v Khan [1978] eKLR
- Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini v A.m Lubia and Olive Lubia [1982 –88] 1 KAR 727
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.
Loading judgment…