Vincent Milimu Appellant v Jose Augusto Pereira & another [2021] KEELRC 151 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court increased a defamation payout to Kshs.500,000, ruling that refusing to apologise after a wrongful accusation justifies extra damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Quantum of damages for defamation - whether Kshs.100,000 was inordinately low
The Court found the trial award low as a global figure and added Kshs.400,000 as aggravated damages while upholding the Kshs.100,000 award
The trial court awarded a global Kshs.100,000 without indicating whether it comprised general, aggravated or exemplary damages. The Respondents stood by the defamatory letter and refused an apology despite knowing the Appellant's conviction had been quashed on appeal, and the Appellant could not secure alternative employment. These met the essential requirements for aggravated damages, justifying limited interference with quantum.
Principles for interference with damages on appeal
The Court applied Butt v Khan: interference only where the award is inordinately high or low, based on wrong principles or misapprehension of evidence
As a first appeal, the Court re-evaluated the evidence afresh but guided by settled principles that it should not simply substitute its own figure. The wide latitude in libel damages and the guidance in John v M.G. Limited, Jones v Pollard and Johnson Evan Gicheru on conduct of the defendant were applied to conclude that modest enhancement, not wholesale substitution, was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence
- Refusal to apologise or standing by a defamatory publication justifies an award of aggravated damages
Court orders
#- 1.The award of Kshs.400,000/= as aggravated damages was granted in addition to the trial award
- 2.The award of Kshs.100,000/= damages by the trial court was upheld
- 3.The Appellant was awarded costs in the lower Court and on appeal
- 4.Interest on damages and costs of the Senior Principal Magistrate's Court to run from the date of judgment of the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Nairobi
- Not stated in the judgment text
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Chief Magistrate's Court (appeal on quantum of damages in a defamation suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vincent Milimu Appellant v Jose Augusto Pereira & another [2021] KEELRC 151 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No 1995 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/151/eng@2021-12-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.