Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtDismissed

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Matthew Nambeta Wanjohi

High Court of Kenya
25 October 2019
1,153 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

#

Failing to formally plead a defense like 'force majeure' means you cannot use it later to avoid legal responsibility in court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Matthew Nambeta Wanjohi sued Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited in the lower court for damages for injuries suffered on 5th May 2011 when he was allegedly electrocuted due to the company's negligence. The trial court found the company 100% liable and awarded general damages of Kshs. 900,000/- with costs and interest. Kenya Power appealed on two grounds: erroneous finding on liability and an excessive quantum of damages. The appeal was argued on written submissions. On liability, the Appellant contended the accident was an Act of God/force majeure, but the Respondent objected that force majeure had not been pleaded. Citing Dakianga Distributors and Malawi Railways, the court held that parties are bound by their pleadings and a court cannot pronounce a defence not raised, as that would amount to a denial of justice. The force majeure defence therefore failed and the trial court's liability finding was affirmed. On quantum, the medical evidence showed amputation of the right upper limb at shoulder level, electrical burns, permanent incapacity of 50%, loss of function of the left hand, and scarring. The Respondent had sought Kshs. 12,000,000/- and cited comparable Kenya Power awards. Applying the Kemfro Africa principles, the court found the Appellant had not demonstrated that the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, omitted a relevant one, or that the award was so inordinately high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. The appeal was found unmeritorious and dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the force majeure defence could sustain the appeal on liability

Holding

The defence fails because it was not pleaded; the trial court's finding of 100% liability is affirmed

Reasoning

Relying on Dakianga Distributors and Malawi Railways, the court held parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot raise a fresh case without amendment. Deciding on an unpleaded defence would deny the other party a hearing. The trial court's liability finding was therefore correct.

p. 2
02

Whether the award of Kshs. 900,000/- general damages was excessive

Holding

The award was neither inordinately high nor based on wrong principles; it is not disturbed

Reasoning

Applying the Kemfro Africa principles, the court found the Appellant had not shown an irrelevant factor was taken into account or a relevant one omitted, nor that the amount was so inordinately high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. The injuries (amputation, burns, 50% incapacity) justified the award.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence but not interfere with trial court findings unless based on no evidence, misapprehension of evidence, or wrong principles
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings and a court cannot pronounce a claim or defence not made by the parties
  • An appellate court may disturb quantum only where an irrelevant factor was considered, a relevant one omitted, or the amount is so inordinately low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (trial court)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's decision (appeal from the lower court in a negligence/damages suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Matthew Nambeta Wanjohi", Case Analysis (2019). . Source: 

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