Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedKericho High Court Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 13th January, 2011)· [2017] KEELRC 1822 (KLR)

James Finlay (K) Ltd v Joseph Ajode Okedi [2017] KEELRC 1822 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
31 January 2017
DMD.K. Njagi Marete
1,346 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An employer who agreed to an 80/20 liability settlement in court could not later appeal the resulting judgment, and the Kshs. 300,000 damages award stood.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the High Court at Kericho against the judgment of the Chief Magistrate in Kericho PMCC No. 993 of 2004, delivered on 7th December 2010. The appellant, the defendant and employer at trial, challenged both liability and quantum, contending that the finding on liability was unsupported by evidence, that the respondent's case was not proved on a balance of probability, and that the award of Kshs. 300,000.00 general damages for a fracture of the long bones of the left leg was inordinately excessive, suggesting a reduction to Kshs. 150,000.00. She relied on the common-law principle that an employee takes risks incidental to employment, citing Abdala Baya Mwanyule v Swaladin Sahid. The respondent urged the settled principles that an appellate court interferes with damages only where an irrelevant factor was considered, a relevant factor omitted, or the award is a wholly erroneous estimate, citing Sokoro Sawmills Ltd v Grace Nduta and Sosphinats Co. Ltd v Daniel Ng'an'ga. The court noted that the parties had, during trial, entered a consent judgment apportioning liability at 80/20 in favour of the plaintiff, with Kshs. 244,500.00 payable. The judge held that the appellant's grounds on liability and proof were an afterthought inconsistent with that consent and collapsed. The damages award was in sync with the consent judgment and comparable awards. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent on 31st January 2017.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the appeal on liability could stand given the consent judgment at 80/20

Holding

The grounds on liability, proof and irrelevancy of evidence were an afterthought inconsistent with the consent judgment and collapsed.

Reasoning

The parties had, on their own motion, agreed and entered a consent judgment apportioning liability 80/20 in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant, who was party to that consent, could not thereafter fault the trial Magistrate's findings on liability, proof on balance of probability and relevance of evidence. Those grounds were inconsistent with the mood of the consent and therefore collapsed on the wayside.

p. 3
02

Whether the award of Kshs. 300,000.00 general damages was excessive

Holding

The award was not excessive; it was in sync with the consent judgment and comparable awards, so there was no basis for interference.

Reasoning

Applying the principles that an appellate court interferes only where an irrelevant factor was considered, a relevant factor omitted, or the award is a wholly erroneous estimate, the court compared the trial award with the consent judgment and similar awards. The award of Kshs. 300,000.00 made no significant departure and further debate was superfluous. The suggested reduction to Kshs. 150,000.00 was refused.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who was party to a consent judgment cannot later fault the trial judgment on grounds inconsistent with that consent; such grounds are an afterthought and collapse.
  • An appellate court will only interfere with an award of damages where the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, left out a relevant factor, or the amount is so high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
  2. 2.The decision of the Chief Magistrate on both liability and quantum in Kericho PMCC No. 993 of 2004 is upheld

Authorities

#

Cases cited (3)

  • Abdala Baya Mwanyule -vs- Swaladin Sahid t/a Jomvu Total Petrol Station
    (2004) eKLR
  • SOKORO SAWMILLS LTD VS GRACE NDUTA
  • Sosphinats Co. Ltd -vs- Daniel Ng'an'ga
    Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2001
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Kericho
PMCC No. 993 of 2004
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrate's Court in Kericho PMCC No. 993 of 2004

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Finlay (K) Ltd v Joseph Ajode Okedi [2017] KEELRC 1822 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Kericho High Court Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 13th January, 2011). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2017/1822/eng@2017-01-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.