REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILLIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E1011 OF 2022
IAN WILLIAM BLACKMAN….…….…..…………….…………...…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
RENTO EAST AFRICA LIMITED…………………………..……1 st RESPONDENT
JOHN KINOTI MARETE………………………………………….2 nd RESPONDENT
( BEING AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT/DECREE OF HON .M. MUTUA (RM-ADJUDICATOR) DELIVERED ON 18 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 IN NAIROBI MILLIMANI SCCC NO E1071 OF 2021 )
BETWEEN
RENTO EAST AFRICA LIMITED...……………………………………. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
IAN WILLIAM BLACKMAN ……………………………..…….. 1 st RESPONDENT
JOHN KINOTI MARETE……………….………………………..2 nd RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
A. Introduction
1. This Appeal arises from the judgment of Hon M. Mutua Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator dated 18 th November 2022, where he endorsed a consent between the 1 st and 2 nd respondents herein, who were the plaintiff and 2 nd defendant respectively in the primary suit, which consent settled liability between the said parties, at the ratio of 80.20 and damages was awarded in the sum of Kshs 731,467/= in favour of the claimant in the primary suit (1 st respondent herein).
2. The background to this dispute is that the 1 st respondent did file their statement of claim, stating that they were the registered owner, user, controller, possessor and insured of Motor vehicle registration Number KCA 128B (GK 004M) {hereinafter referred to as the 1 st suit motor vehicle ), While the appellant was sued as the registered owner, user and insured of motor vehicle registration Number KBS 913H (hereinafter referred to as the 2 nd suit motor vehicle) . They further pleaded that the 2 nd respondent was the appellants driver, beneficial owner and/or, authorized driver/agent of the appellant.
3. It was the 1 st respondents’ case that on or about 22 nd July 2017, their authorized agent was lawfully driving the 1 st suit motor vehicle along Thika Road, near Roysambu Roundabout, when the 2 nd respondent, while driving the 2 nd suit motor vehicle, so negligently and recklessly drove, managed and/or controlled the said motor vehicle that he caused to violently ram into the 1 st suit motor vehicle and as a consequence caused it extensive damages which necessitated repairs, costing Kshs 722,209.00/=. The said repair cost had been borne by the 1 st respondents insurer M/S UAP Old Mutual Insurance, which together with the claimant had instituted the primary suit to enable them recover its outlay under the principal of Subrogation.
4. In response, the appellant filed his comprehensive statement of response, where he categorically denied any liability arising from the alleged accident and clarified that before the said accident, specifically on 20 th May 2014 he had delivered the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd, to advertise the same for sale at a commission, but in breach of the said agency agreement fraudulently, irregularly and through corrupt means sold and delivered possession of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to the 2 nd respondent, closed business and failed or neglected to pay the proceeds of the sale to him.
5. As a result, on 20.02.2015 he had lodge a complaint against Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd at Kilimani Police station under OB/12/0750 HRS and the matter was under investigation by the DCI, because the said firm had closed office without paying him and all efforts to trace them had not borne fruit. It was therefore his contention that given that the 2 nd respondent had bought the said 2 nd suit motor vehicle in 2015 from Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd, and had complete control and possession of the said motor vehicle, he could not be held vicariously liable for the accident, which occurred on 22 nd July 2017 and urged the trial court to so hold.
6. The appellant proceeded to file a counter claim and Third party claim as against the 2 nd respondent and Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd claiming a sum of Ksh’s 730,000/= being the unpaid purchase price of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle and Kshs 10,000/= being cost of transferring the same to the 2 nd respondent. He reiterated his earlier averments as to how on 30.05.2024, he had delivered the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd and expressly entered into an agency agreement where they would sell the said motor vehicle for a sale commission of 2.5% of the sale value.
7. Subsequently, in January 2015, he had discovered that the third party had sold and delivered possession of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to the 2 nd respondent for a sum of Kshs 730,000/= , closed business and relocated to unknown place with intent to defraud his of the proceeds thereof. He therefore urged the court to enter judgment jointly and severally against the 2 nd respondent and third party in the sum of Ksh’s 730,000/= being the unpaid purchase price of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle and Kshs 10,000/= being cost of transferring the same to the 2 nd respondent.
8. The 2 nd respondent and third party did not file any response to this claim and on 26.05.2022 interlocutory judgment entered against the 2 nd respondent. Further on 02.08.2022 the appellants counsel confirmed to the trial magistrate that they had served the third-party notice upon Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd, and were yet to receive any response from the said party.
9. On the 18.11.2022, the 1 st respondents counsel informed the trial court that they had a consent to record with the 2 nd respondent. They had agreed that liability between them would be settled at 80.20 in favour of the 1 st respondent and the suit be settled at an all-inclusive sum of Kshs 731,467.00/= in favour of the claimant. The 1 st respondent also confirmed that in light of the consent reached, they did not want to peruse their claim against the appellant and it could be marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs
10. . In response, the appellants counsel insisted that the counter claim filed as against the 2 nd respondent herein and AMI PAL East Africa Ltd (third party) should proceed and requested that judgment be entered in their favour as against the 2 nd respondent and the 3 rd party given that they had failed to respond to the counterclaim filed.
11. The trial magistrate having considered the parties submissions, adopted the consent as judgment of the court and further proceeded to dismiss the 1 st respondents claim against the appellant with no orders as to costs. He further held that the appellants claim as against the 3 rd party did not arise in the suit filed and proceeded to dismiss the same with no orders as to costs.
12. Being aggrieved by the said ruling the appellant filed their memorandum of appeal dated 13 th December 2022, where they raised nine (9) grounds of appeal, namely that;
a) That the trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact by refusing to enter judgment against the Third party who failed to enter appearance and/or file a response to the claim despite being satisfied that service had been duly effected as provided by Order 16 and 21(2) of the Small claims court Rules,2019.
b) That the trial adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to enter judgement against the 2 nd respondent without giving the reasons thereof despite the fact that the said 2 nd respondent had entered appearance but failed to file a response against the cross-claim dated 29.04.2022.
c) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in refusing to appreciate that failure to find liability against the Third party and the 2 nd respondent would occasion the Appellant the loss of his motor vehicle valued at Ksh740,000.00, thereby denying the Appellant equal protection of the law provided by Article 27(1) and Article 159 of the Constitution.
d) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in failing to determine the cross claim and the third-party claim that had raised issues of fraud thereby failing to appreciate that the 2 nd respondent and the Third party were parties to the fraud that occasioned the loss of the Appellant’s motor vehicle registration number KBS 913H.
e) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate that the Appellant was still the registered owner of Motor vehicle registration Number KBS 913H and was to blame for the accident by the claimant therein for that particular reason.
f) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate the arguments tendered by the Appellant to the effect that in the absence of the reliefs prayed for against the 2 nd respondent and the Third party in the Appellants defense, cross claim and Third-party Notice, the Appellant would repeatedly find himself in the precarious position as he remains the registered owner of the said motor vehicle.
g) That the trial Adjudicator erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate the weight of the legal issues raised by the Appellant relating to fraud.
h) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law by exercising his discretion injudiciously thus arriving at the wrong and erroneous conclusion.
i) That the Trial Adjudicator applied wrong principles of law in denying the Appellant the reliefs sought in the order and judgment of the court given on 18 th November, 2022.
13. The appellant thus urged this court to find that this Appeal has merit, it be allowed and the ruling of the trial court dated 18 th November 2022 be set aside and substituted with an order allowing the appellants counterclaim against the 2 nd respondent herein and Third party herein. The appellant also prayed to be awarded costs of his counter claim and for this Appeal.
B. Analysis and Determination
14. I have considered this appeal, the parties respective submissions filed, and the impugned judgment. I have also considered the decisions relied on and perused the trial court’s record. This being an appeal from the Small Claims Court, it is important to point out that Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act provides that appeals from the said court shall be only on issues of law.
15. An appeal limited to matters of law does not permit the appellate court to substitute the tribunal's decision with its own conclusions based on its own analysis and appreciation of the facts. In John Munuve Mati Vr The returning officer, Mwingi North Constitency & 2 others (2018) eKLR , what amounts to “matters of law” was described as;
(38) The interpretation or construction of the constitution, statute, or regulations made thereunder or their application to the sets of facts established by the trial court. As far as facts are concerned, our engagement with them is limited to background and context, and to satisfy ourselves, when the issue is raised, whether the conclusions of the trial judge are based on the evidence on record or whether they are so perverse that no reasonable tribunal would have arrived at them. We cannot be drawn into consideration of the credibility of witnesses or which witnesses are more believable than others; by law, that is the province of the trial court.
16. This Appeal turns one issue, which is whether the trial magistrate erred in summarily dismissing the appellants counterclaim against the 2 nd respondent and third party without giving them their day in court. It is trite law that the counter claim filed, is an independent cross-action filed by a defendant against a plaintiff and any other persons within the same suit, acting as a distinct "suit within a suit" , as provided for under Order 7 Rule 7, 8 & 9 of the Civil Procedure Rule (CPC), and it operates as a separate suit, allowing for an independent decree. Therefore, even if the suit as between the 1 st respondent herein and the 2 nd respondent was settled by consent, it was incumbent upon the trial court to separately determine the merits of the counter claim filed.
17. In Halsbury Laws of England, 5th Edition 2010 Vol. 61 at para 639 on the right to be heard, it was stated that:
“The rule that no person is to be condemned unless that person has been given prior notice of the allegations against him and a fair opportunity to be heard (the audi alteram partem rule) is a fundamental principle of justice. This rule has been refined and adapted to govern the proceedings of bodies other than judicial tribunals; and a duty to act in conformity with the rule has been imposed by the common law on administrative bodies not required by statute or contract to conduct themselves in a manner analogous to a court.”
18. The trial court failed to do so and in effect dismissed the appellants counter claim without determining its merits, effectively condemning the appellant unheard contrary to the universal rule that nobody will be condemned unheard. The said right is so basic that a decision which is arrived at in violation of it will be nullified, even if the same decision would have been reached had the party been heard, because, the violation is considered to be a breach of natural justice. See Ridge vs. Baldwin [1964] AC 40, Richard Nchapi Leiyagu vs. IEBC & 2 Others [2013]eKLR; Mbaki & Others vs. Macharia & Another [2005] 2EA 206; and the Tanzanian case of Abbas Sherally & Another vs. Abdul Fazaiboy, Civil Application No. 33 of 2003 .
19. Finally, Article 50(1) of the Constitution also makes provision for fair hearing and its effect, is that every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. It was therefore a misdirection for the trial magistrate to summarily dismissing the counter claim and third party proceeding filed, without considering the merits thereof.
C . Disposition
20. Having arrived at the above finding, I do find and hold that this Appeal has merit. The trial Magistrate’s order dated 18 th November 2022 dismissing the counter claim and the third-party proceedings filed as against the 2 nd respondent and Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd is therefore set aside and substituted with an order directing that the same will be determined on merit, before a different trial court.
21. Each party will bear their own costs of this Appeal.
22. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed, and delivered in open court at MARSABIT this .............25th.....................day of MARCH, 2026.
FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL
JUDGE
Delivered on the virtual platform, Team this ………day of ……25 th ……………. MARCH ,2026.
In the presence of : -
…………………N/A……………………………………..Appellant
……………………N/A…………………………………. Respondent
……………………JARSO…………………………………. Court Assistant
MILLIMANI HCCA NO E1011 OF 20228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILLIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E1011 OF 2022
IAN WILLIAM BLACKMAN….…….…..…………….…………...…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
RENTO EAST AFRICA LIMITED…………………………..……1 st RESPONDENT
JOHN KINOTI MARETE………………………………………….2 nd RESPONDENT
( BEING AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT/DECREE OF HON .M. MUTUA (RM-ADJUDICATOR) DELIVERED ON 18 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 IN NAIROBI MILLIMANI SCCC NO E1071 OF 2021 )
BETWEEN
RENTO EAST AFRICA LIMITED...……………………………………. CLAIMANT
VERSUS
IAN WILLIAM BLACKMAN ……………………………..…….. 1 st RESPONDENT
JOHN KINOTI MARETE……………….………………………..2 nd RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
A. Introduction
1. This Appeal arises from the judgment of Hon M. Mutua Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator dated 18 th November 2022, where he endorsed a consent between the 1 st and 2 nd respondents herein, who were the plaintiff and 2 nd defendant respectively in the primary suit, which consent settled liability between the said parties, at the ratio of 80.20 and damages was awarded in the sum of Kshs 731,467/= in favour of the claimant in the primary suit (1 st respondent herein).
2. The background to this dispute is that the 1 st respondent did file their statement of claim, stating that they were the registered owner, user, controller, possessor and insured of Motor vehicle registration Number KCA 128B (GK 004M) {hereinafter referred to as the 1 st suit motor vehicle ), While the appellant was sued as the registered owner, user and insured of motor vehicle registration Number KBS 913H (hereinafter referred to as the 2 nd suit motor vehicle) . They further pleaded that the 2 nd respondent was the appellants driver, beneficial owner and/or, authorized driver/agent of the appellant.
3. It was the 1 st respondents’ case that on or about 22 nd July 2017, their authorized agent was lawfully driving the 1 st suit motor vehicle along Thika Road, near Roysambu Roundabout, when the 2 nd respondent, while driving the 2 nd suit motor vehicle, so negligently and recklessly drove, managed and/or controlled the said motor vehicle that he caused to violently ram into the 1 st suit motor vehicle and as a consequence caused it extensive damages which necessitated repairs, costing Kshs 722,209.00/=. The said repair cost had been borne by the 1 st respondents insurer M/S UAP Old Mutual Insurance, which together with the claimant had instituted the primary suit to enable them recover its outlay under the principal of Subrogation.
4. In response, the appellant filed his comprehensive statement of response, where he categorically denied any liability arising from the alleged accident and clarified that before the said accident, specifically on 20 th May 2014 he had delivered the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd, to advertise the same for sale at a commission, but in breach of the said agency agreement fraudulently, irregularly and through corrupt means sold and delivered possession of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to the 2 nd respondent, closed business and failed or neglected to pay the proceeds of the sale to him.
5. As a result, on 20.02.2015 he had lodge a complaint against Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd at Kilimani Police station under OB/12/0750 HRS and the matter was under investigation by the DCI, because the said firm had closed office without paying him and all efforts to trace them had not borne fruit. It was therefore his contention that given that the 2 nd respondent had bought the said 2 nd suit motor vehicle in 2015 from Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd, and had complete control and possession of the said motor vehicle, he could not be held vicariously liable for the accident, which occurred on 22 nd July 2017 and urged the trial court to so hold.
6. The appellant proceeded to file a counter claim and Third party claim as against the 2 nd respondent and Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd claiming a sum of Ksh’s 730,000/= being the unpaid purchase price of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle and Kshs 10,000/= being cost of transferring the same to the 2 nd respondent. He reiterated his earlier averments as to how on 30.05.2024, he had delivered the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd and expressly entered into an agency agreement where they would sell the said motor vehicle for a sale commission of 2.5% of the sale value.
7. Subsequently, in January 2015, he had discovered that the third party had sold and delivered possession of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle to the 2 nd respondent for a sum of Kshs 730,000/= , closed business and relocated to unknown place with intent to defraud his of the proceeds thereof. He therefore urged the court to enter judgment jointly and severally against the 2 nd respondent and third party in the sum of Ksh’s 730,000/= being the unpaid purchase price of the 2 nd suit motor vehicle and Kshs 10,000/= being cost of transferring the same to the 2 nd respondent.
8. The 2 nd respondent and third party did not file any response to this claim and on 26.05.2022 interlocutory judgment entered against the 2 nd respondent. Further on 02.08.2022 the appellants counsel confirmed to the trial magistrate that they had served the third-party notice upon Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd, and were yet to receive any response from the said party.
9. On the 18.11.2022, the 1 st respondents counsel informed the trial court that they had a consent to record with the 2 nd respondent. They had agreed that liability between them would be settled at 80.20 in favour of the 1 st respondent and the suit be settled at an all-inclusive sum of Kshs 731,467.00/= in favour of the claimant. The 1 st respondent also confirmed that in light of the consent reached, they did not want to peruse their claim against the appellant and it could be marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs
10. . In response, the appellants counsel insisted that the counter claim filed as against the 2 nd respondent herein and AMI PAL East Africa Ltd (third party) should proceed and requested that judgment be entered in their favour as against the 2 nd respondent and the 3 rd party given that they had failed to respond to the counterclaim filed.
11. The trial magistrate having considered the parties submissions, adopted the consent as judgment of the court and further proceeded to dismiss the 1 st respondents claim against the appellant with no orders as to costs. He further held that the appellants claim as against the 3 rd party did not arise in the suit filed and proceeded to dismiss the same with no orders as to costs.
12. Being aggrieved by the said ruling the appellant filed their memorandum of appeal dated 13 th December 2022, where they raised nine (9) grounds of appeal, namely that;
a) That the trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact by refusing to enter judgment against the Third party who failed to enter appearance and/or file a response to the claim despite being satisfied that service had been duly effected as provided by Order 16 and 21(2) of the Small claims court Rules,2019.
b) That the trial adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to enter judgement against the 2 nd respondent without giving the reasons thereof despite the fact that the said 2 nd respondent had entered appearance but failed to file a response against the cross-claim dated 29.04.2022.
c) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in refusing to appreciate that failure to find liability against the Third party and the 2 nd respondent would occasion the Appellant the loss of his motor vehicle valued at Ksh740,000.00, thereby denying the Appellant equal protection of the law provided by Article 27(1) and Article 159 of the Constitution.
d) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in failing to determine the cross claim and the third-party claim that had raised issues of fraud thereby failing to appreciate that the 2 nd respondent and the Third party were parties to the fraud that occasioned the loss of the Appellant’s motor vehicle registration number KBS 913H.
e) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate that the Appellant was still the registered owner of Motor vehicle registration Number KBS 913H and was to blame for the accident by the claimant therein for that particular reason.
f) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate the arguments tendered by the Appellant to the effect that in the absence of the reliefs prayed for against the 2 nd respondent and the Third party in the Appellants defense, cross claim and Third-party Notice, the Appellant would repeatedly find himself in the precarious position as he remains the registered owner of the said motor vehicle.
g) That the trial Adjudicator erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate the weight of the legal issues raised by the Appellant relating to fraud.
h) That the Trial Adjudicator erred in law by exercising his discretion injudiciously thus arriving at the wrong and erroneous conclusion.
i) That the Trial Adjudicator applied wrong principles of law in denying the Appellant the reliefs sought in the order and judgment of the court given on 18 th November, 2022.
13. The appellant thus urged this court to find that this Appeal has merit, it be allowed and the ruling of the trial court dated 18 th November 2022 be set aside and substituted with an order allowing the appellants counterclaim against the 2 nd respondent herein and Third party herein. The appellant also prayed to be awarded costs of his counter claim and for this Appeal.
B. Analysis and Determination
14. I have considered this appeal, the parties respective submissions filed, and the impugned judgment. I have also considered the decisions relied on and perused the trial court’s record. This being an appeal from the Small Claims Court, it is important to point out that Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act provides that appeals from the said court shall be only on issues of law.
15. An appeal limited to matters of law does not permit the appellate court to substitute the tribunal's decision with its own conclusions based on its own analysis and appreciation of the facts. In John Munuve Mati Vr The returning officer, Mwingi North Constitency & 2 others (2018) eKLR , what amounts to “matters of law” was described as;
(38) The interpretation or construction of the constitution, statute, or regulations made thereunder or their application to the sets of facts established by the trial court. As far as facts are concerned, our engagement with them is limited to background and context, and to satisfy ourselves, when the issue is raised, whether the conclusions of the trial judge are based on the evidence on record or whether they are so perverse that no reasonable tribunal would have arrived at them. We cannot be drawn into consideration of the credibility of witnesses or which witnesses are more believable than others; by law, that is the province of the trial court.
16. This Appeal turns one issue, which is whether the trial magistrate erred in summarily dismissing the appellants counterclaim against the 2 nd respondent and third party without giving them their day in court. It is trite law that the counter claim filed, is an independent cross-action filed by a defendant against a plaintiff and any other persons within the same suit, acting as a distinct "suit within a suit" , as provided for under Order 7 Rule 7, 8 & 9 of the Civil Procedure Rule (CPC), and it operates as a separate suit, allowing for an independent decree. Therefore, even if the suit as between the 1 st respondent herein and the 2 nd respondent was settled by consent, it was incumbent upon the trial court to separately determine the merits of the counter claim filed.
17. In Halsbury Laws of England, 5th Edition 2010 Vol. 61 at para 639 on the right to be heard, it was stated that:
“The rule that no person is to be condemned unless that person has been given prior notice of the allegations against him and a fair opportunity to be heard (the audi alteram partem rule) is a fundamental principle of justice. This rule has been refined and adapted to govern the proceedings of bodies other than judicial tribunals; and a duty to act in conformity with the rule has been imposed by the common law on administrative bodies not required by statute or contract to conduct themselves in a manner analogous to a court.”
18. The trial court failed to do so and in effect dismissed the appellants counter claim without determining its merits, effectively condemning the appellant unheard contrary to the universal rule that nobody will be condemned unheard. The said right is so basic that a decision which is arrived at in violation of it will be nullified, even if the same decision would have been reached had the party been heard, because, the violation is considered to be a breach of natural justice. See Ridge vs. Baldwin [1964] AC 40, Richard Nchapi Leiyagu vs. IEBC & 2 Others [2013]eKLR; Mbaki & Others vs. Macharia & Another [2005] 2EA 206; and the Tanzanian case of Abbas Sherally & Another vs. Abdul Fazaiboy, Civil Application No. 33 of 2003 .
19. Finally, Article 50(1) of the Constitution also makes provision for fair hearing and its effect, is that every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. It was therefore a misdirection for the trial magistrate to summarily dismissing the counter claim and third party proceeding filed, without considering the merits thereof.
C . Disposition
20. Having arrived at the above finding, I do find and hold that this Appeal has merit. The trial Magistrate’s order dated 18 th November 2022 dismissing the counter claim and the third-party proceedings filed as against the 2 nd respondent and Ami-Pal East Africa Ltd is therefore set aside and substituted with an order directing that the same will be determined on merit, before a different trial court.
21. Each party will bear their own costs of this Appeal.
22. It is so ordered.
Dated, signed, and delivered in open court at MARSABIT this .............25th.....................day of MARCH, 2026.
FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL
JUDGE
Delivered on the virtual platform, Team this ………day of ……25 th ……………. MARCH ,2026.
In the presence of : -
…………………N/A……………………………………..Appellant
……………………N/A…………………………………. Respondent
……………………JARSO…………………………………. Court Assistant
MILLIMANI HCCA NO E1011 OF 20228