Githua & 2 others v Maina & another (Suing as legal administrators of the Estate of Beth Waithiegeni Maina (Deceased)) (Civil Appeal E060 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 24033 (KLR) (24 October 2023) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• The second issue addresses the validity of the special damages award (Kes 336,750/-). The appellants contended that only Kes 102,050/- in receipts were proven, and the remaining invoices lacked revenue stamps, citing the Stamp Duty Act. The court rejected this, emphasizing that the duty to affix stamps lies with the recipient, not the payee, and referencing cases like Paul N. Njoroge v Abdul Sabuni Sabonyo. The award was upheld as the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence, including funeral expenses and a paid invoice, despite the absence of stamps.
• The first issue concerns whether the trial court's award of loss of dependency (Kes 2,376,464/-) was inordinately high. The appellants argued the deceased's net salary (Kes 14,852/-) and a 20-year multiplier were reasonable, but disputed the variance from their proposed Kes 2,376,320/-. The court found the award reasonable, noting the minimal difference (Kes 144/-) and the appellants' admission of the 20-year multiplier. Legal principles from Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tele and Sheikh Mustaq Hassan v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters were cited to affirm the trial court's discretion in damage assessment.

Holdings

• The court determined that the special damages of Kes 336,750/- were properly pleaded and proved. It ruled that the absence of revenue stamps on receipts did not invalidate them, as the duty to affix stamps lies with the recipient, not the payee. The trial court's decision on this matter was affirmed.
• The court held that the trial court's multiplier of 20 years for loss of dependency was reasonable, and the award of Kes 2,376,464/- was not inordinately high. The difference of Kes 144/- from the appellants' calculation was attributed to the use of a rounded salary figure. The court dismissed the appeal on this ground as frivolous.

Remedies

• The court ordered that the costs of the appeal be borne by the respondents. This includes legal expenses incurred during the appellate process.
• The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents. The court found no merit in the appellants' claims and upheld the original judgment of the trial court.

Legal Principles

• The court emphasized that appellate courts should not interfere with trial court findings unless there is no evidence to support them or the trial judge was plainly wrong. This aligns with the principles in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co, Mwangi v Wambugu, and Kiruga v Kiruga, which outline the limited scope of appellate review of factual determinations.
• The court reaffirmed the legal principle that special damages require specific pleading and strict proof, as established in Hahn v Singh. This was central to evaluating the respondents' claims for funeral expenses and other documented costs.
• The court cited Benjamin Muela Kimono v Tarus and Paul Njoroge v Sabonyo to clarify that the burden of affixing revenue stamps lies with the recipient, not the payee. This principle was used to uphold the admissibility of the respondents' receipts despite the absence of stamps.

Precedent Name

• George Gichanga Karanja & another v Mwangi Nderitu Ngatia
• Kiruga v Kiruga & another
• Anne Wanjiku Ngugi & another v Attorney General
• Mwangi v Wambugu
• Beatrice Wangui Thairu v Hon. Ezekiel Barngetuny & another
• Sukari Industries Limited v Ismael Ombaka Omar & another
• Hahn v Singh
• Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tele
• Sheikh Mustaq Hassan v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters & 5 others
• Selle and another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd & others
• Joseph Kimani & another v James Kangara Kabanya
• Benjamin Muela Kimono v Daniel Kipkirong Tarus & another
• Paul N. Njoroge v Abdul Sabuni Sabonyo
• Chunibhai J. Patel & another v P. F. Hayes & others

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• In view of the foregoing, I find that the appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
• As such, it is my considered view that the deceased was 36 years old and thus a multiplier of 20 years was reasonable... The award of Kes 2,376,464/- is reasonable and not inordinately high as argued by the appellant.
• Thus it is my considered view that the trial court was correct in finding that the respondents proved special damages to the sum of Kes 336,750/-.