High Court reiterates the importance of pleadings and evidence

Summary
In the case of Adam Kahindi vs. Sailesh Jadavji Rabadia (unreported) HCCA no. 123 of 2023, the High Court of Kenya (the Court) set aside the judgment of the subordinate court, in which the subordinate court had entered judgment in favour of Sailesh Jadavji Rabadia (the respondent) against Adam Kahindi (the appellant). The court proceeded to dismiss the claim in the subordinate court. The court held that it is the plaintiff, in this case the respondent that has the burden to prove his claims and secondly, that a party is bound by their pleadings. The advocate for the successful party was Okello Kinyanjui and Company LLP.

Background
The brief facts as provided in the judgment of the Court were that the respondent filed a suit against the appellant and pleaded that the respondent carried on business as Tapas Cielo and that the appellant was an employee. The respondent allegedly lent the appellant Kes.200,000, which the appellant allegedly failed to repay. The appellant filed a defence and denied liability. The appellant denied the existence of an agreement and further averred that if such an agreement existed it was void and unenforceable for lack of clarity.

The subordinate court proceeded to rule in favourr of the respondent and the respondent being aggrieved, proceeded to prefer an appeal against the decision of the subordinate court.

Findings
The court, after lamenting on what it referred to as a prolixious 22 paragraph affidavit went on to re-evaluate came to the conclusion that firstly, pleadings by the respondent did not support the respondent’s evidence, in that the evidence tendered showed that the appellant worked for the respondent between 2014 to 2015 yet the documents produced related to 2020. Secondly, even the documents produced were worthless, as they do not show that the respondent was ever given Kes,200,000. The court was categorical, basing itself on section 3 (1) of the Law of Contract Act that a contract such as the one alleged by the respondent must be evidenced in writing.

The court, thus proceeded to set aside the judgment of the subordinate court, and dismissed the claim in the subordinate court.

Our comments
The ruling was good. Though a small part of what the court discussed was actually obiter dicta, the obiter dicta statements are good law. For example, the court discussed the principles of disturbing the quantum of damages given by a lower court. Strictly speaking, it was not necessary for the court to discuss this, because the Court eventually dismissed the claim in the lower court, but as we have stated, the principles propounded by the court are good law, and that is the court, sitting as an appellate court, while regarding whether the correct quantum of damages was awarded had a duty to:-

(a) Ascertain whether the lower court applied irrelevant factors or left out relevant factors.

(b) Ascertain whether the award was so high, or so low as to amount to an erroneous assessment of damages.

(c) Ascertain whether the award was justified by the evidence.

On the matters that were relevant to the ruling, i.e. a party being bound by their pleadings and a plaintiff bearing the burden of proving their case, we think the court was correct in its analysis. It is an old principle of the common law that a party cannot present evidence that was not in its pleadings and a plaintiff must indeed prove his/hers/its claim if he/she/it hopes to succeed.

The decision can be found on the following link, i.e., https://1drv.ms/b/s!AoBLduXPOXm3heMcEKcfdv855iULnw?e=Pac18D