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

Nthiga v John (Civil Appeal 54 of 2019) [2025] KECA 556 (KLR) (14 March 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECA 556 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
556
Citation
[2025] KECA 556 (KLR)
Decided
14 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at EmbuCoramALI-ARONI, JUDGE OF APPEAL, Kimaru, Muchemi
Holding

The court found that there was a variation of the terms of the agreement by the conduct of the parties, and the appellant met the cost of repairs.

Facts

The appellant, John Njeru Nthiga, filed a plaint against the respondent, Muriithi John, in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Embu, seeking Kshs.160,200 plus interest and costs. The respondent alleged that the appellant refused to honor an agreement for compensation for damage to the respondent's vehicle.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a subsequent agreement to replace the written one made on 25/02/2016
  2. Whether the appellant's vehicle was repaired at Nyeri at his cost
  3. Whether the vehicle was repaired in Embu at the cost of the respondent
  4. Whether the appellant proved his claim to the standards required in civil cases
  5. Who will meet the costs of the suit

Reasoning

The court held that the respondent's evidence of an oral agreement to repair the vehicle at DW2's garage was not supported by the evidence, and the conduct of the parties, including taking the vehicle to DW2's garage, constituted a variation of the agreement.

Outcome

Affirmed the judgment of the High Court.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Housing Finance Co. of Kenya Limited vs. Gilbert Kibe Njuguna Nairobi HCCC No. 1601 of 1999
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case