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

Beauty Line Limited v Benedict Nyamora Monene [2018] KEELRC 2580 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 2580 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2580
Citation
[2018] KEELRC 2580 (KLR)
Decided
31 July 2018
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the lower courtCoramM. MBARU
The court finds no legal reason to disturb the findings save for the apportionment of liability which shall be 50:50. The sum of kshs.150,000.00 was deposited with the court as directed, and an appropriate sum shall be released to the parties putting into account the apportionment above at 50:50 on the award by the trial court of Kshs.300,000.00 in damages. On costs, each party shall bear own costs.

Facts

The appellant, Beauty Line Limited, was found liable to the respondent, Benedict Nyamora Monene, in a lower court judgment for 90:10 and assessed damages at Kshs.300,000.00 less 10% contribution and special damages at Kshs.5,000.00 plus costs and interests.

Issues

  • The learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in delivering judgement in the plaintiffs favour.
  • The learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in disregarding the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence.
  • The learned trial magistrate erred in law and in awarding damages based in injuries that had not been proved.
  • The learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in holding that the defendant was liable despite there being evidence to the contrary.
  • The learned trial magistrate erred in law in failing to take into consideration the submissions tended on behalf of the defendant.
  • The learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in entering judgement in general damages in the sum of Kshs.300,000 which was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

Reasoning

The court re-evaluated the evidence and found that the trial court applied itself within material evidence before it and on an appropriate threshold of a balance of probabilities made its findings. The trial court did not err in law by finding that the respondent had demonstrated and met the legal burden placed on him.

Outcome

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the lower court is set aside, and the respondent is ordered to pay the costs.

Orders

  • The sum of kshs.150,000.00 deposited with the court as directed shall be released to the parties putting into account the apportionment above at 50:50 on the award by the trial court of Kshs.300,000.00 in damages.
  • Each party shall bear own costs.
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case