Mkari v Meza

The appeal in *Mkari v Meza* concerned a dispute between the appellant and the respondent. The District Court had made a judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant sought to overturn this judgment.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to apply the principle established in *Browne v Dunn*. Specifically, the court considered whether the appellant's evidence, which was ultimately not accepted by the trial judge, had been sufficiently challenged during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in accepting the respondent's evidence on a particular issue without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to address that evidence. The principle in *Browne v Dunn* requires that if a party intends to challenge the evidence of another party, they must put their challenge to that witness during cross-examination. This was not done sufficiently in this instance. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the District Court, and ordered a new trial limited to the issue of damages. The costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant, with provision for a certificate under the *Suitors' Fund Act 1951*. The costs of the first trial were to be determined by the judge presiding over the new trial.