A paint company’s colourful advertisement has ended in an unexpectedly expensive courtroom dispute over property rights.
Crown Paints Kenya has lost a High Court appeal and must bear a KSh3.5 million damages award.
The dispute began after Punjab Engineering Works accused Crown Paints of painting its building without permission.
The building stands on Plot No. Thika Municipality Block 8/180 within Thika Town.
Punjab claimed the colourful branding turned its private building into an advertising billboard.
It said Crown Paints gained commercial exposure while using property belonging to someone else.
The company filed its original suit on November 2, 2020, seeking compensation and other remedies.
Among those remedies was KSh1.438 million in compensatory damages for the alleged commercial use.
The case eventually produced a much larger damages award, setting up Crown Paints’ appeal.
A Costly Paint Job
Punjab presented evidence showing its ownership of the disputed commercial property.
Its witness also produced photographs showing Crown Paints’ branding on the building.
The paint manufacturer denied liability but ultimately presented no evidence during the trial.
It did not attend the hearing or call witnesses to challenge Punjab’s account.
That absence would later prove costly when the dispute reached the High Court.
The magistrate eventually ruled for Punjab and awarded KSh3.5 million in general damages.
The court also awarded costs, leaving the paint manufacturer facing a substantial financial liability.
Crown Paints then appealed, arguing that the award was excessive and legally unsupported.
The company wanted the damages reduced to KSh50,000, describing that figure as appropriate.
Its lawyers argued Punjab had failed to prove the specific financial loss claimed.
They also challenged the magistrate’s assumption that Crown Paints continued benefiting commercially from the advertisement.
Trespass Confirmed
Justice David Mburu examined the appeal as a first appellate court.
That required him to reconsider the evidence and reach his own conclusions.
The first major question was whether Crown Paints had actually trespassed onto Punjab’s property.
The answer was unequivocal: the High Court agreed that trespass had occurred.
Punjab had produced its certificate of title proving registered ownership of the property.
The court also considered photographs showing Crown Paints’ painting on the building.
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act recognises registered title as prima facie evidence of ownership.
The judge therefore upheld the magistrate’s finding that Crown Paints had trespassed.
That finding became the foundation for everything that followed.
The court then confronted the paint manufacturer’s argument that Punjab had not proved actual financial loss.
Here, the law offered Punjab considerably more room than Crown Paints expected.
Loss Not Essential
Justice Mburu relied on Bhagwani Singh v National Housing Corporation concerning damages for trespass.
That decision recognises that courts can award reasonable damages once trespass is established.
A claimant does not necessarily need to prove every shilling of financial loss.
Courts can consider the trespass duration, its nature, and the trespasser’s conduct.
The principle recognises that unlawful interference with property rights carries consequences itself.
Crown Paints therefore faced a difficult task in challenging the KSh3.5 million award.
The company had to prove that the magistrate applied wrong principles or awarded manifestly excessive damages.
Justice Mburu found that the paint manufacturer had failed to cross that legal threshold.
The court also rejected the argument that Punjab had received special damages without proper proof.
The judge said the magistrate had awarded a lump sum as general damages instead.
Therefore, the strict rules governing special damages did not undermine the award.
Evidence Seals Fate
Perhaps the most damaging finding concerned Crown Paints’ failure to challenge Punjab’s evidence.
Justice Mburu noted that Crown Paints presented no evidence rebutting Punjab’s commercial-benefit allegations.
As a result, Punjab’s evidence remained “uncontroverted” before the court.
That evidential gap made Crown Paints’ later challenge considerably harder to sustain.
The High Court also considered the established principles governing appellate interference with damages.
Under Kemfro Africa Limited v Lubia, an appellate court cannot simply substitute its preferred figure.
It must find a wrong principle or an award that is manifestly excessive.
Justice Mburu found neither circumstance established by Crown Paints.
Instead, the judge considered the property’s commercial nature and infringement of property rights.
He also considered Crown Paints’ conduct during the proceedings before concluding the award was reasonable.
The appeal was consequently dismissed, with the paint manufacturer ordered to pay the costs.
The ruling carries a broader warning for companies pursuing aggressive advertising campaigns.
A privately owned wall may offer valuable visibility, but ownership still controls access.
Commercial ambition cannot replace consent when another person’s property is being used.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
