Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 27 of 2018

Rukia Abdi Manya & Mariam Ares Abdi v Officer Commanding Police Station, Habaswein, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & Hon. Attorney General

High Court of Kenya
12 February 2020
CKC. Kariuki
3,473 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

To recover damages for malicious prosecution in Kenya, you must prove every single expense with detailed receipts, not just list figures.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal from part of the judgment of Hon. A. K. Makorros, SRM in Wajir Civil Suit No. 2 of 2017, in which the two appellants, elderly women, successfully sued for malicious prosecution after being charged in Wajir Criminal Case No. 80 of 016, which they won. The trial court awarded each appellant Kshs. 300,000/- general damages but dismissed the special damages claim of Kshs. 5 million (legal fees, private prosecution fees, transport, accommodation and meals). On appeal, the appellants argued the special damages were strictly proved by receipts and that the general damages were inordinately low, seeking at least Kshs. 2 million each. The respondents defended the award and the refusal of special damages. The court, as a first appellate court, re-evaluated the evidence. It held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved: the first appellant merely threw figures at the court without credible evidence; only defence legal fees of Kshs. 2 million were proved on a balance of probabilities by the second appellant. The claimed Kshs. 540,000/- flight ticket was rejected as a fraud, the court taking judicial notice that the Nairobi-Wajir return fare is Kshs. 17,000/-. The private prosecution claim had no supporting proceedings, and food and accommodation were neither itemized nor proved. On quantum, applying Butt v Khan, Kemfro Africa and Gicheru v Morton, the court found no basis to disturb Kshs. 300,000/- per appellant. The appeal was allowed only in part: the court substituted an award of Kshs. 2 million special damages for both appellants while maintaining general damages, with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Proof of special damages

Holding

Only defence legal fees of Ksh 2 million proved on balance of probabilities; other heads failed for lack of strict proof

Reasoning

The first appellant led no evidence beyond listing figures; the second appellant's receipts for defence legal fees were credible, but the private prosecution claim had no proceedings produced, the flight ticket was implausible against judicially noticed fares, and food and accommodation were neither itemized nor strictly proved.

p. 4
02

Quantum of general damages for malicious prosecution

Holding

Ksh 300,000/- per appellant was not inordinately low; appellate interference not justified

Reasoning

Applying Butt v Khan, Kemfro Africa and Gicheru v Morton, interference requires a wrong principle or an entirely erroneous estimate. The appellants did not manifest loss and damage beyond what the trial court assessed, and assessment of general damages is discretionary.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved with as much particularity as circumstances permit
  • An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.General damages for each appellant Ksh 300,000/=.
  2. 2.Special damages for both appellants Ksh 2million.
  3. 3.Parties to bear their costs.
On appeal from
Wajir Principal Magistrate's Court
Wajir Civil Suit No. 2 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial magistrate's court decision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rukia Abdi Manya & Mariam Ares Abdi v Officer Commanding Police Station, Habaswein, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & Hon. Attorney General", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2018. Source:

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