Skip to document content Go to main menu Go to search

Mwangi v Mambo (Civil Appeal E1058 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 8438 (KLR) (Civ) (12 June 2025) (Judgment)

Mwangi v Mambo (Civil Appeal E1058 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 8438 (KLR) (Civ) (12 June 2025) (Judgment)
Citation
Mwangi v Mambo [2025] KEHC 8438 (KLR)
Media Neutral Citation
[2025] KEHC 8438 (KLR)
Court
High Court
Court station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Outcome
Dismissed
Case number
Civil Appeal E1058 of 2023
Judges
DKN Magare
Judgment date
12 June 2025
Language
English
Type
Judgment
Original source file
Download DOCX (44.6 KB)
Collections
Date published
19 June 2025
Case action
Judgment
Court division
Civil
Filing county
Nairobi
Order
i. The appeal was dismissed. ii. Each party to bear their own costs. iii. 30 days stay of execution. iv. The file was closed.
Skip to document content
1.This is an appeal from the Judgment and decree of Hon. S.N. Muchangi (PM) delivered on 22.09.2023 in Nairobi CMCC No. E3327 of 2020. The Appellant was the defendant in the lower court. After hearing the parties, the court entered judgment as follows:a.Liability 100%b.General damages Ksh. 200,000/=c.Special damages Ksh. 6,155/=Total Ksh.216,155/=d.Costs and interest
2.The Appellant was aggrieved and filed this appeal vide a Memorandum of Appeal dated 11.10.2023. The memorandum of appeal raised prolixious 9-paragraph argumentative grounds that are unseemly and do not please the eye. Order 42 Rule 1 requires that the memorandum of appeal be concise. The same provides as doth:“1.Form of appeal –1.Every appeal to the High Court shall be in the form of a memorandum of appeal signed in the same manner as a pleading.2.The memorandum of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decree or order appealed against, without any argument or narrative, and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively.”
3.The Court of Appeal had this to say in regard to rule 86 (which is pari materia with Order 42 Rule 1) in the case of Robinson Kiplagat Tuwei v Felix Kipchoge Limo Langat [2020] eKLR: -“We are yet again confronted with an appeal founded on a memorandum of appeal that is drawn in total disregard of rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules. That rule demands that a memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely, without argument or narrative, the grounds upon which a judgment is impugned. What we have before us are some 18 grounds of appeal that lack focus and are repetitively tedious. It is certainly not edifying for counsel to present two dozen grounds of appeal, and end up arguing only two or three issues, on the myth that he has condensed the grounds of appeal. This Court has repeatedly stated that counsel must take time to draw the memoranda of appeal in strict compliance with the rules of the Court. (See Abdi Ali Dere v. Firoz Hussein Tundal & 2 Others [2013] eKLR) and Nasri Ibrahim v. IEBC & 2 Others [2018] eKLR. In the latter case, this Court lamented:“We must reiterate that counsel must strive to make drafting of grounds of appeal an art, not an exercise in verbosity, repetition, or empty rhetoric…A surfeit of prolixious grounds of appeal do not in anyway enhance the chances of success of an appeal. If they achieve anything, it is only to obfuscate the real issues in dispute, vex and irritate the opposite parties, waste valuable judicial time, and increase costs.” The 18 grounds of appeal presented by the appellant, Robinson Kiplagat Tuwei against the judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (Odeny, J.) dated 19th September 2018 raise only two issues…”
4.Further in Kenya Ports Authority v Threeways Shipping Services (K) Limited [2019] eKLR, the court of appeal observed that : -“Our first observation is that the memorandum of appeal in this matter sets out repetitive grounds of appeal. The singular issue in this appeal is whether Section 62 of the Kenya Ports Authority Act ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court. We abhor repetitiveness of grounds of appeal which tend to cloud the key issue in dispute for determination by the Court. In William Koross V. Hezekiah Kiptoo Kimue & 4 others, Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2013, this Court stated:“The memorandum of appeal contains some thirty-two grounds of appeal, too many by any measure and serving only to repeat and obscure. We have said it before and will repeat that memoranda of appeal need to be more carefully and efficiently crafted by counsel. In this regard, precise, concise and brief is wiser and better.”
5.The rest of the issues are ancillary, repetitive, prolixious and a waste of judicial time. In a nutshell, the first two grounds are baseless and are dismissed in limine as they are not stand-alone grounds. Grounds 3, 4 and 7 are on liability while 5, 6, 7, and 8 are on quantum. Ground 7 is a compounded ground on both liability and quantum. The issues for determination will therefore be:a.Liabilityb.General damagesc.Special damages
Pleadings
6.The Respondent filed the suit vide a plaint dated 18.06.2020. The Respondent was a fare paying passenger in the suit motor vehicle. It is in respect of an accident on 26.01.2020 involving motor vehicle registration number KCN 135B Isuzu bus along Thika Road at Car Wash area. The accident was self-involving.
7.The Respondent pleaded the following particulars of special damages:a.Medical report Ksh. 3,000/=b.Medical expenses Ksh. 2,605/=c.Copy of records Ksh. 550/=
8.The Respondent pleaded the following as particulars of injuries:a.Blunt injury on the right upper limbb.Deep cut on the scalp
9.The Appellant entered appearance and filed a defence denying the averments in the Plaint. She attributed liability to the Respondent for not taking precautions for his safety. They also stated that the accident was inevitable.
Evidence
10.PW1 was Joshua Maina Mambo. He testified that he was a passenger in the suit motor vehicle and was issued with a police abstract. He sustained the pleaded injuries and he uses pain killers to contain the pain. He blamed the driver of the suit motor vehicle. On cross examination, he stated that on reaching carwash area, the vehicle lost control and swerved towards the driver’s side.
11.PW2 was Corporal Moses Aduol of Kasarani Police Station. He testified that there was a self-involving accident on 26.01.2020. He stated that, upon reaching the Car Wash area, the vehicle lost control, resulting in injuries to several passengers. The Appellant did not present any evidence in response.
Submissions
12.Despite directions to file submissions, the parties did not file submissions.
Analysis
13.This being a first appeal, this court is under a duty to re-evaluate and assess the evidence and make its own conclusions. It must, however, keep at the back of its mind that a trial court, unlike the appellate court, had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and hearing their evidence first hand. In the case of Mbogo and Another vs. Shah [1968] EA 93 the Court stated:“…that this Court will not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by an inferior court unless it is satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong, because it has misdirected itself or because it has acted on matters on which is should not have acted or because it failed to take into consideration matters which it should have taken into consideration and in doing so arrived at a wrong conclusion.”
14.The duty of the first appellate Court was settled long ago by Clement De Lestang, VP, Duffus and Law JJA, in the locus classicus case of Selle and another Vs Associated Motor Board Company and Others [1968]EA 123, where the Judges in their usual gusto, held by as follows;-“.. this court is not bound necessarily to accept the findings of fact by the court below. An appeal to this court ... is by way of re-trial and the Court of Appeal is not bound to follow the trial Court’s finding of fact if it appears either that he failed to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities or if the impression of demeanour of a witness is inconsistent with the evidence generally.”
15.The Court is to bear in mind that it had neither seen nor heard the witnesses. It is the trial court that has observed the demeanor and truthfulness of those witnesses. However, documents still speak for themselves. The observation of documents is the same as the lower court as parties cannot read into those documents matters extrinsic to them. In Fidelity & Commercial Bank Ltd V Kenya Grange Vehicle Industries Ltd (2017) eKLR, the Court of Appeal, Ouko, Kiage and Murgor JJA held as doth;-“Courts adopt the objective theory of contract interpretation and profess to have overriding view sometimes called Four Corners of an Instrument, which insists that a documents meaning should be derived from the document itself, without reference to anything outside of the document, extrinsic reversed…”
16.It is a strong thing for an appellate court to differ from the findings on a question of fact, of the magistrate who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In the case of Peters vs Sunday Post Limited [1958] EA 424, the court therein rendered itself as follows:-“It is a strong thing for an appellate court to differ from the findings on a question of fact, of the judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses…But the jurisdiction to review the evidence should be exercised with caution: it is not enough that the appellate court might have come to a different conclusion…”
17.The burden was on the Respondent to prove his case. On this subject, Section 107-109 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya provides that:“107.(1)Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.(2)When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.108.The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.109.The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”
18.The question as to what amounts to proof on a balance of probabilities was discussed by Kimaru, J in William Kabogo Gitau vs. George Thuo & 2 Others [2010] 1 KLR 526 as follows:“In ordinary civil cases, a case may be determined in favour of a party who persuades the court that the allegations he has pleaded in his case are more likely than not to be what took place. In percentage terms, a party who is able to establish his case to a percentage of 51% as opposed to 49% of the opposing party is said to have established his case on a balance of probabilities. He has established that it is probable than not that the allegations that he made occurred.”
19.This was further enunciated in the case of Palace Investments Limited v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Dollar Auctions [2015] KECA 616 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal [J Karanja, G.G. Okwengu, CM Kariuki, JJA] stated as follows:The burden of proof is placed upon the appellant and is to be discharged on a balance of probabilities. Denning J. in Miller –vs- Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372 discussing the burden of proof had this to say:-“That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: ‘We think it more probable than not’, the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not. Thus, proof on a balance or preponderance of probabilities means a win, however narrow. A draw is not enough. So, in any case in which the tribunal cannot decide one way or the other which evidence to accept, where both parties’ explanations are equally (un)convincing, the party bearing the burden of proof will lose, because the requisite standard will not have been attained.”
20.The appellant did not testify hence did not rebut the respondent’s case. The Respondent was still bound to prove his case even where no evidence was tendered. In the case of Peri Formwork Scaffolding v White Lotus Projects Limited [2021] eKLR, the court stated as follows:In Rosaline Mary Kahumbu v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2014] eKLR, the Court held:In contrast, at a formal proof hearing, if the party with the onus of adducing evidence fails to satisfy the truth threshold, the matter would stand to be dismissed on the basis that it was unmeritorious and did not raise sufficient proof of any issues of fact or law. It would be heard and determined on its merits. 8. In this regard, in a formal proof hearing, a party with the onus of adducing evidence must produce such sufficient evidence which must satisfy the court as to its truth.
21.The duty to prove in formal proof was stated by Justice J. B. Havelock in the case of Rosaline Mary Kahumbu v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2014] eKLR: -“In light of the absence of a Defence on the file, it follows logically, that the matter would proceed to formal proof. What therefore is hearing by formal proof? In the case of Samson S. Maitai & Another v African Safari Club Ltd & Another [2010] eKLR, Emukule, J observed thus;“……. I have not seen judicial definition of the phrase "Formal Proof". "Formal" in its ordinary Dictionary meanings - refers to being "methodical" according to rules (of evidence). On the other hand according to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 15, para, 260, "proof" is that which leads to a conviction as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Proof refers to evidence which satisfies the court as to the truth or falsity of a fact. Generally, as we well know, the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the truth of the issue in dispute. If that party adduces sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden passes to the other party who will fail unless sufficient evidence is adduced to rebut the presumption.”Can hearing, therefore, by formal proof, be similar to a full hearing? According to the observations of Emukule, J, in a formal hearing, all rules of evidence and procedure are observed and the party to a suit has to adduce evidence sufficient to sustain the suit. In adducing this evidence, the party has to raise a presumption that whatever is claimed is true and this therefore goes to the merits of the case. The Court considering a full hearing, to determine the matter based on the evidence that is presented before it by the parties. In contrast, at a formal proof hearing, if the party with the onus of adducing evidence fails to satisfy the truth threshold, the matter would stand to be dismissed on the basis that it was unmeritorious and did not raise sufficient proof of any issues of fact or law. It would be heard and determined on its merits.”
22.The court will make an adverse inference when a party failed to call evidence they have. In the case of Nesco Services Limited v CM Construction [EA] Limited [2021] eKLR, Justice Odunga J as he then was stated as doth: -“Since the said author was for reasons unknown to the Court not called to testify and dispute its authenticity, adverse inference could be made thereon. In Kenya Akiba Micro Financing Limited vs. Ezekiel Chebii & 14 others [2012] eKLR the court stated as follows:“Section 112 of the Evidence Act Chapter 80 of the laws of Kenya provides:“In civil proceedings, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proofing of disproving that fact is upon him.’Where a party has custody or is in control of evidence that that party fails or refuses to tender or produce, the court is entitled to make an adverse inference that if such evidence was produced, it would be adverse to such a party. In the case of Kimotho –vs- KCB (2003) 1 EA 108 the court held that adverse inference should be drawn upon a party who fails to call evidence in his possession.”
23.What is the effect of failure by the appellant to tender evidence in rebuttal? In the case of Leo Investment Limited v Mau West Limited & another [2019] eKLR Justice C Kariuki, J, stated as doth: -“But what are the effect of failure by the appellant to tender evidence in rebuttal? The court in Shaneebal Limited vs County Government of Machakos [2018] eKLR (supra) addressed this issue in paragraphs 24 to 29 and while citing other case laws it held that where no defence is filed but no witness is called to give evidence in support of the defence, it means that the defence renders the plaintiff’s case unchallenged.39.That where a party fails to call evidence in support of its case, that party’s pleadings remain mere statements of fact since in so doing the party fails to substantiate its pleadings. In the same vein the failure to adduce any evidence means that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff against them is uncontroverted and therefore unchallenged.”
24.The evidence reached a prima facie standard and is now uncontroverted. The Respondent tendered evidence on how the accident occurred. The police officer indicated what the police records indicate. The driver, who was the other party to the accident decided not to testify. Failure to testify leads the court to make an adverse inference. However, I am equally persuaded by the reasoning of Odunga, J as he then was in Bernard Philip Mutiso v Tabitha Mutiso [2022] eKLR where the learned Judge stated as follows:53.In this case the only people who could have explained the circumstances under which the accident occurred were Musyoka Mutiso who was ahead of the deceased, PW2 and the Appellant. PW2 gave evidence that tended to show that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Appellant while Musyoka Mutiso was not called to testify. In those circumstances one would have expected the Appellant to testify in order to controvert the evidence of PW2 but he chose not to do so. Accordingly, I find that not only was the evidence of PW2 uncontroverted but the conduct of the Appellant invited the inference that his evidence, had he testified, would have been adverse to his case as pleaded.
25.Where a party has custody or is in control of evidence which that party fails or refuses to tender or produce, the court is entitled to make adverse inference that if such evidence was produced, it would be adverse to such a party. In the case of Nesco Services Limited v CM Construction [EA] Limited [2021] eKLR, Justice G V Odunga as then he was, stated as doth:“In my view, the fact that the document in question was authored by the Appellant’s agent and was produced by consent of the parties themselves entitled the learned trial magistrate to rely on it. The Court of Appeal in Ephantus Mwangi and Another vs. Duncan Mwangi Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1982 [1982-1988] 1KAR 278 had this to say on the issue:“Where documents are put in by consent, as for example an agreed bundle of correspondence, the usual agreement is that they are admitted to be what they purport to be (so as to save the necessity for formal proof of each document).”41.Since the said author was for reasons unknown to the Court not called to testify and dispute its authenticity, adverse inference could be made thereon. In Kenya Akiba Micro Financing Limited vs. Ezekiel Chebii & 14 others [2012] eKLR the court stated as follows:“Section 112 of the Evidence Act Chapter 80 of the laws of Kenya provides:“In civil proceedings, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proofing of disproving that fact is upon him.’Where a party has custody or is in control of evidence which that party fails or refuses to tender or produce, the court is entitled to make adverse inference that if such evidence was produced, it would be adverse to such a party. In the case of Kimotho –vs- KCB (2003) 1 EA 108 the court held that adverse inference should be drawn upon a party who fails to call evidence in his possession.”
26.Failure by the appellant to testify only means one thing, had the appellant or his driver testified, the evidence would have been adverse to them. Then, what was the evidence they were to tender? Evidence can only be tendered in support of pleadings. In this case, it was the appellant’s pleadings that the accident was inevitable. The burden of proving this was on the defendant.
27.The Respondent proved liability for the accident. However, no contributory negligence was proved. In any case this was a self-involving accident. Without evidence of the accident being inevitable, then the finding on liability was proper. Appeal on liability is therefore dismissed.
28.The particulars of contributory negligence were not proved. They were pleaded but remained bare. The appellant had a duty to render evidence to prove contributory negligence. Where the Respondent proved his case to the required standard, it was the duty of the Appellant to prove contributory negligence which in my view she failed. In the case of Mac Drugall App V Central Railroad Co. Rbr 63 Cal 431 the court held that; -“In an action to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been received through the negligence of the defendant, contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a matter of defence and it is an error to instruct the jury that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the injury occurred without such negligence”.
29.In the case of Mombasa Maize Millers & another v Elius Kinyua Gicovi [2021] eKLR Nyakundi J referred to Wayne Ann Holdings Limited (T/a Superplus Food Stores) v Sandra Morgan, and held as follows:“In this case contributory negligence was raised as a defence. When such a defence [sic] is raised, it is only necessary for a defendant to show a want of care on the part of the claimant for his own safety in contributing to his injury. In Nance v British Columbia Electric Rly [1951] AC 601, at page 611, Lord Simon said:“……When contributory negligence is set up as a defence, its existence does not depend on any duty owed by the injured party to the party sued, and all that is necessary to establish such a defence is to prove … that the injured party did not in his own interest take reasonable care of himself and contributed, by this want of care, to his own injury. For when contributory negligence is set up as a shield against the obligation to satisfy the whole of the plaintiff’s claim the principle involved is that, where a man is part author of his own injury, he cannot call on the other party to compensate him in full.”
30.In the circumstances, the appeal on liability lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
31.On quantum, the court awarded Ksh. 200,000/=. In the lower court the Appellant relied on authorities from 2018 and 2016. Circumstances in which an Appellate court will interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by a trial court were clearly laid out in the case of Kenya Bus Services Limited vs. Jane Karambu Gituma Civil Appeal Case No. 241 of 2000 where the Court of Appeal stated as follows:“…in this regard, both the East African Court of Appeal (the predecessor of this Court) and this court itself have consistently maintained that an appellate court will not interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by a trial court unless it is satisfied either that the trial court acted on a wrong principle of law (as by taking into account some irrelevant factor or leaving out of account of some relevant one or adopting the wrong approach), or it has misapprehended the facts, or for those or any other reasons the award was so inordinately high or low so as to represent a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages.”
32.The principles guiding this Court as the first appellate court have crystalized. This is in recognition that the award of damages is discretionary. The Court of Appeal pronounced itself succinctly on the principles of disturbing awards of damages in Kemfro Africa Limited t/a “Meru Express Services (1976)” & another v Lubia & another (No 2) [1985] eKLR as follows:The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial Judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied that either that the Judge, in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one, or that, short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
33.In this case parties were in agreement from the lower court on the nature and effect of the injuries. The injuries were blunt injury to the right upper limb and deep cut on the scalp and the court awarded general damages of Ksh. 200,000/=.
34.In the case of Justine Nyamweya Ochoki & another v Jumaa Karisa Kipingwa [2020] eKLR the court awarded the sum of Kshs. 150,000/- for blunt object injury to the lower lip, blunt object injury to the chest, and blunt object injury to the left wrist.
35.In Mulwa & Another v Nzai (Civil Appeal E072 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 6898 (KLR) (10 June 2024) (Judgment) the court awarded Kshs. 250,000/=, reduced from the lower court’s award of Ksh. 400,000/= for the Plaintiff who had suffered the following injuries:a.Small bruise on the right ankleb.Soft tissue injuries on lower back and right lower limbc.Blunt object injury to the lower and right limbd.Bruises on the right lower limb.
36.In Kimori v Mangare (Civil Appeal E004 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14283 (KLR) (11 February 2022) (Judgment) the Respondent had sustained some deep cut wounds on the left leg, chest contusion and trauma to the right leg and neck, a sum of Ksh.130,000/= was awarded as adequate compensation for the injuries sustained.
37.Bearing in mind the inflation and passage of time, I do not think Ksh. 200,000/= was inordinately high as to be reduced by this court. The same is upheld.
38.The next issue is costs. Costs are governed by Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides as follows:(1)Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court or judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers: Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.(2)The court or judge may give interest on costs at any rate not exceeding fourteen percent per annum, and such interest shall be added to the costs and shall be recoverable as such.
39.The Court of Appeal in the case of Farah Awad Gullet v CMC Motors Group Limited [2018] KECA 158 (KLR) had this to say:It is our finding that the position in law is that costs are at the discretion of the court seized up of the matter with the usual caveat being that such discretion should be exercised judiciously meaning without caprice or whim and on sound reasoning secondly that a court can only withhold costs either partially or wholly from a successful party for good cause to be shown.
40.The Supreme Court set forth guiding principles applicable in the exercise of that discretion in the case of Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others v. Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others, SC Petition No. 4 of 2012; [2014] eKLR, as follows: -“(18)It emerges that the award of costs would normally be guided by the principle that “costs follow the event”: the effect being that the party who calls forth the event by instituting suit, will bear the costs if the suit fails; but if this party shows legitimate occasion, by successful suit, then the defendant or Respondent will bear the costs. However, the vital factor in setting the preference is the judiciously-exercised discretion of the Court, accommodating the special circumstances of the case, while being guided by ends of justice. The claims of the public interest will be a relevant factor, in the exercise of such discretion, as will also be the motivations and conduct of the parties, before, during, and subsequent to the actual process of litigation…. Although there is eminent good sense in the basic rule of costs– that costs follow the event – it is not an invariable rule and, indeed, the ultimate factor on award or non-award of costs is the judicial discretion. It follows, therefore, that costs do not, in law, constitute an unchanging consequence of legal proceedings – a position well illustrated by the considered opinions of this Court in other cases.
41.The appellant has lost the appeal. The respondent did not file any response. Each party to bear their own costs.
Determination
42.In the upshot, I make the following orders:a.The appeal is dismissed.b.Each party to bear their own costs.c.30 days stay of execution.d.The file is closed.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NYERI ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025.Judgment delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.KIZITO MAGAREJUDGEIn the presence of: -No appearance for partiesCourt Assistant – JedidahM. D. KIZITO, J.
▲ To the top
Date Case Court Judges Outcome Appeal outcome
12 June 2025 Mwangi v Mambo (Civil Appeal E1058 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 8438 (KLR) (Civ) (12 June 2025) (Judgment) This judgment High Court DKN Magare  
22 September 2023 ↳ CMCC No. E3327 of 2020 Magistrate's Court SN Muchungi Dismissed