Simba Colt Motors Limited v James Gitahi Mwangi
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out a Sh.126 million award because the trial court never ruled on each claim and wrongly told the company to calculate its own liability.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Industrial Court determined the five issues it framed in dispute
The court was bound to make a finding with reasons on each framed issue; failing to do so rendered the award defective and this ground succeeded.
The trial court framed five issues at the outset but determined only one composite issue. Relying on Order 20 rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and treating the award as a judgment, the Court held that once issues are framed, the court must state its finding with reasons on each separate issue. Both parties pleaded and gave evidence on each claim, so each aspect of the Sh.126.7 million claim required individual determination.
Whether the trial court could direct the appellant to compute the award and pay it
Directing a party to compute damages abdicates the judicial function and is a nullity.
The Court adopted its prior holdings in Telkom Kenya Ltd v John Ochanda and Kenya Revenue Authority v Menginya Salim Murgani that computation and assessment of entitlements reside in the courts, not in defendants. The trial court abdicated its role by ordering the appellant to calculate and pay the commission, and that ground of appeal was upheld.
Whether the cause should be remitted to the Industrial Court for fresh computation
Remittal was refused because the issues were never determined and the special damages claimed were not proved.
Since the trial court failed to determine each issue, there was no basis on which a computation could be undertaken; a suit cannot be tried in instalments or parties given a second bite at the cherry. The specific claims (fleet incentive, bull bars, standard commission, salary for 20 days) were pleaded as special damages but were not proved with the required certainty, so remittal would be an exercise in futility.
Proof of special damages in employment claims
Claims for specific commissions and dues are special damages which must be specially pleaded and strictly proved; unproved items cannot be awarded.
The respondent had no documentary evidence for the fleet incentive of Sh.2,810,000, admitted bull bar entitlement was not in his appointment letter, and claimed salary for 20 days on an unproduced payslip inconsistent with his appointment letter. Invoking Kenya Wildlife Services v Rift Valley Agricultural Services Ltd, the Court held that certainty and particularity are required in both pleading and proof of special damages, which the respondent failed to satisfy.
Legal principles established
#- An award of the Industrial Court, like any judgment, must finally determine each of the issues framed between the parties, stating the decision and reasons on each separate issue.
- The assessment or computation of damages/entitlements is a judicial function that cannot be delegated to a party to the litigation.
- On a first appeal, the Court of Appeal undertakes a re-evaluation of the recorded evidence and is not bound by the findings of fact of the trial court.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal was allowed
- 2.The trial court's (Industrial Court) decision was set aside
- 3.Costs of the appeal and of the Industrial Court were awarded to the appellant
- On appeal from
- Industrial Court at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 448(N) of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Employment Act No. 11 of 2007 and the Labour Institutions Act No. 12 of 2007 framework (dispute lodged under those Acts); decision below was an award of the Industrial Court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simba Colt Motors Limited v James Gitahi Mwangi", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/385/eng@2015-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.