Samwel Kanogo Ritho v John Mwangi Kariithi & Another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a court which grants an injunction for breach of contract can also award damages, and awarded over Kshs 510,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial judge, having granted an injunction restraining interference with the appellant's development, erred in refusing to award damages for breach of contract
- 2.Whether the appellant was entitled to damages for the increased cost of construction and loss of rent
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to award damages in lieu of or in addition to an injunction
The court, having jurisdiction to entertain an application for an injunction against breach of contract, may award damages to the injured party in addition to or in substitution for the injunction
Section 3(1)(c) of the Judicature Act imports the doctrines of equity into Kenya. Lord Cairn's Act, as construed in Leeds Co-operative Society Ltd v Slack, empowers a court entertaining an injunction application to award damages either additionally or in substitution. Damages in addition compensate past injury; damages in substitution cover future injury too. The Court of Appeal had earlier reinforced this in Openda v Aann.
Entitlement to damages for increased construction costs and loss of rent
The appellant was entitled to damages under both heads - increased cost of construction and loss of rent - notwithstanding the trial judge's view that damages were too speculative
The trial judge had found breach of contract and granted an injunction against interference. The appellant discontinued development due to the respondent's interference and suffered increased construction costs and lost rent on resumption. On the authorities, the court held the appellant entitled to damages under both heads, quantifying them at Kshs 250,000 and Kshs 260,250 respectively.
Legal principles established
#- A party can claim damages in lieu of specific performance under the equitable principles imported by the Judicature Act
- Where a court grants an injunction to protect a plaintiff from a defendant's interference, it may award damages in addition to or in substitution for the injunction
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside that part of the High Court judgment which dismissed the appellant's claim for damages
- 2.Award damages of Kshs 250,000 being the difference in the cost of building between 1978 and 1982
- 3.Award Kshs 260,250 being loss of rent for the five flats at Kshs 1,375 per flat per month from January 1, 1979 to February 28, 1982
- 4.Appellant to have costs of the appeal and interest on the decretal amount at court rates
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal (no specific constitutional/statutory provision stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Specific performance of the contract
Grounds not pursued on appeal because the first respondent voluntarily executed a transfer of the suit premises to the appellant
Costs
The appellant will have costs of this appeal and interest on the decretal amount at court rates.
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.
On the basis of the case authorities referred to hereinabove we hold that the appellant was entitled to damages under both heads of his claim.
We therefore set aside that part of the judgment of the High Court which dismissed the appellant’s claim for damages and substitute therefore an award to the appellant of damages
The appellant will have costs of this appeal and interest on the decretal amount at court rates. Those are the orders of the court.
This court recently reviewed the authorities interpreting section 2 of the said Lord Cairn’s Act and reinforced the position that a party can claim damages in lieu of specific performance.
Issues in the judgment
#Award of loss of rent (Kshs 260,250) does not match the appellant's pleaded computation (Kshs 260,000) for the same period and rate
Delivery date stated inconsistently: 'October 12, 1988' and 'this12th day of October 12, 1988'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samwel Kanogo Ritho v John Mwangi Kariithi & Another", Case Analysis (1988). Civil Appeal No 27 of 1985. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1988/143/eng@1988-10-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.