High Court 3262 of 2018

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2017 SIPROSA O. GONDI.......................................................................APPELLANT -VERSUSSOUTH NYANZA SUGAR CO. LTD...........................................RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the judgment and decree by Hon. Kamau, C.M., Resident Magistrate in Rongo Senior Resident Magistrate's Civil Suit No. 87 of 2014 delivered on 19/09/2017). JUDGMENT 1. There is only one issue for determination in this appeal. It is whether the learned trial court erred in not awarding damages for the first and second ratoon crops. 2. There is no cross-appeal against the judgment. The Appellant submitted that the trial court having found that the Respondent herein was in breach of the contract, then it was bound to award damages for the two ratoon crops in accordance with the contract entered to by the parties on 24/06/2005 which the court upheld its validity. The Respondent was of the contrary position. It contended that the Appellant did not plead for such damages hence he was not entitled in law for such judgment. 3. As the first appellate Court it is now well settled that the role of this court is to revisit the evidence on record, evaluate it and reach its own conclusion in the matter. (See the case of Selle & Ano. vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd (1968) EA 123). This court nevertheless appreciates that an appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact by the trial Court unless they were based on no evidence at all, or on a misapprehension of it or the Court is shown demonstrably to have acted on wrong principles in reaching the findings. This was the holding in Mwanasokoni – versus- Kenya Bus Service Ltd. (1982-88) 1 KAR 278 and Kiruga –versus- Kiruga & Another (1988) KLR 348). 4. I have carefully and keenly read and understood the proceedings and the judgment of the trial court as well as the grounds and the parties' submissions on appeal. I have previously dealt with the issue in this appeal at length in Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2015 James Maranya vs. South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited (2017) eKLR where on the guidance of the decision of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu in Civil Appeal No. 278 of 2010 John Richard Okuku Oloo vs. South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd (2013) eKLR I found that in a contract similar to the one in this matter a farmer is not only entitled to the value of the proceeds from the plant crop, but also from the ratoon crops. However, it all depends on how a party tailored its pleading. 5. In this case the Appellant claimed compensation from three cycles as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the Plaint and quantified the loss at Kshs. 506,250/=. The contract was clear on the duration and the expected yields. The Appellant was to earn from the plant crop and two ratoon crops and as such she was entitled to such compensation. As admitted by the Appellant at the trial, those earnings were subject to all expenses and charges incurred by the Respondent. 6. As to the expected yields, the trial court rightly adopted the tonnage of 66.56 tonnes per hectare for the crop plant guided by the Cane Yields Schedule developed by the Respondent since the source of the like Schedule provided by the Appellant remain unknown. The expected yields for the ratoons would hence be 57.36 tonnes per hectare. There is no contention on the size of the land and the then prevailing cane prices. The Appellant was hence entitled to the sum of Kshs. 143,400/= on account of the two ratoon cycles thereby bringing the total compensation to Kshs. 213,651/=. 7. Following the foregone discourse, the upshot is that the following final orders do hereby issue: a) The appeal hereby succeeds, and the award in the judgment of the learned trial magistrate is set-aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 213,651/=.

page 1 of 2