The business had lost premises, equipment and the documents it would ordinarily use to prove their value. The Court of Appeal found liability established, but did not simply convert the amount in the plaint into a compensation award.
Garissa Maize Millers Limited v Attorney General & 2 others [2023] KECA 1500 (KLR) is identified in the retained selection record as a Court of Appeal judgment of 8 December 2023, Civil Appeal 160 of 2016.
The court remitted assessment of a global award to the High Court. The pleaded KSh 407,172,000, its claimed interest and the requested costs were not an appellate monetary award.
The claim followed destruction of a milling business
The company alleged that military officers destroyed its property during events in Garissa in November 2012. It sought declarations and compensation for premises and business assets.
The respondents disputed responsibility and the claimed losses. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the company had not established the necessary connection between the officers and the destruction or sufficiently proved the monetary claim.
The appeal challenged both aspects: who was responsible and how loss should be assessed when records had themselves been destroyed.
This was a property-damage action, not a compulsory-acquisition valuation or a determination of competing land titles.
The appellate court reassessed the liability evidence
The Court of Appeal considered direct eyewitness evidence, photographs and the surrounding evidence of the military presence. It also considered the Parliamentary report supporting the company's account.
It found that the totality of the evidence established the respondents' liability in tort. The trial court's refusal to attribute responsibility was therefore erroneous.
That is an appellate civil finding. The company's broader allegations about instructions passing through the military chain of command should not be recast as separate findings against every official mentioned in its pleadings.
Paragraphs 23-28 identify the evidence and the liability conclusion actually reached.
Proving the amount remained a separate task
The company had listed destroyed items and assigned values, but the court noted the absence of specific receipts, invoices or valuation reports supporting those amounts.
It also accepted that documents had been destroyed in the fire. The very event giving rise to liability had impaired the company's ability to prove the losses in the ordinary way.
The court did not ignore that difficulty, but neither did it say that every listed figure was established.
It decided that the appropriate response was a fresh hearing on quantum, taking account of the circumstances and the need to assess a global award.
The remittal defined what was won
Paragraphs 34-35 sent the matter back to the High Court for hearing and determination of the amount, before a judge other than the original trial judge.
Each party was ordered to bear its own appellate costs.
The decision therefore gave the company a liability finding and a route to compensation assessment. It did not quantify the award, prove that money was paid or resolve every later enforcement question.
Reading only the amount claimed alongside the words “appeal allowed” would materially overstate the result.
A later company-name result was not the compensation judgment
The retained 2026 business-premises ruling concerns an intended appeal from BPRT E014 of 2025, not this compensation action. Paragraph 22 allowed fourteen days to file and serve an appeal and conditional stay pending that appeal. Security was due within thirty days; both clocks ran from the ruling's “today,” not its upload or this article's date. Default would lapse the stay automatically, and costs would abide the intended appeal.
Its numeric security figure and words conflict. Neither compliance nor continued stay is established. A later company-name match is not proof of a compensation outcome.
No post-remittal quantum judgment or payment evidence is established by the material used for this draft.
Questions when buildings and business records are both lost
What evidence connects the damage to the alleged wrongdoer? What independently supports the inventory and values? Which records were destroyed, and what evidence explains that loss? Has the court decided liability, amount, payment or only one of those stages?
These are distinct questions for a Kenyan advocate and relevant valuation or accounting professionals. The judgment does not provide a universal formula for replacing missing proof with a pleaded total.
ArdhiScore screening can organise available source-linked records, dates and questions for official or professional enquiry. It cannot value destroyed assets, establish liability, secure compensation, certify title or guarantee complete coverage. It does not replace official records or qualified Kenyan advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
Independent AI review on 11 September 2026 read retained original web_fetch outputs from the postwriting cache index, distinct from the writer's selected-cache index: principal paragraphs 1-35 and related paragraphs 1-22, including all continuations and suborders. No network request or new history search occurred.
Source hold: both decisions lack formal identity/docket headers, panels, body dates and signed closings. The related security wording also remains unresolved. Neither source is complete. Access/reuse, privacy/legal and publication approval remain separate; no present compensation or enforcement status is established.
Read the judgment, particularly paragraphs 23-35. The separate business-premises ruling, paragraphs 1 and 20-22, is cited only to distinguish its subject.