Attorney General v Waiyera [1983] KECA 41 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that speculative future promotions cannot be precisely quantified as damages, but injured workers can claim for reduced earning capacity.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether loss of future promotional prospects and earnings can be awarded as special damages
- 2.Whether the evidence supported the judge's mathematically precise award for lost promotion
- 3.Whether the respondent was entitled to damages for loss of earning capacity, and in what amount
- 4.Whether the award of Kshs 130,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was so low as to justify interference on the cross-appeal
Key legal issues
#Characterisation of lost future promotion as special damages
Erroneous; special damages are only out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings actually incurred up to the date of trial
The judge had included unpleaded loss of promotion figures within special damages and general damages alike. The court held future promotion is inherently uncertain: the plaintiff's superior said promotion was not automatic and depended on individual performance, so the prospect was speculative. Such loss can only be a factor in assessing general damages, not a head capable of precise quantification.
Damages for loss of earning capacity
Awarded Kshs 384,000 based on a real risk of early retirement at about age 45, applying a 10-year (120-month) multiplier to Kshs 3,200 per month
Following Scarman LJ in Smith v Manchester Corporation as quoted in Moeliker v Reyrolle, the court held the weakened earning capacity is an existing loss even if the plaintiff is still employed. The unchallenged evidence of the risk of early retirement due to eye injury justified the award; the court assessed it as best it could, taking pension and investment income into account.
Adequacy of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
Kshs 130,000 was manifestly too low; increased to a global sum of Kshs 225,000
Comparing comparable Kenyan and English awards for skull fracture, eye injury, scars and dental damage, the court adopted a global figure. The gravest injury was to the eye; the trial figure did not reflect comparable awards such as Juma v Kenya Glass Works (Kshs 70,000 for total loss of vision) and Lalji v Toka (Kshs 75,000 for jaw and teeth injuries).
Appellate interference with assessment of damages
Interference justified only where the award is an entirely erroneous estimate or made on wrong principles
The court applied the principle that an appellate court will not substitute its own figure merely because it would have awarded differently; it must be shown the judge proceeded on wrong principles or made an entirely erroneous estimate. Here the lost-promotion calculation was speculative, justifying substitution, and the pain-and-suffering award was demonstrably too low.
Legal principles established
#- Loss of earnings on future promotion cannot form part of special damages because they are not quantifiable or ascertainable at the date of trial
- Loss of possible promotion may be taken into account in general damages but not with mathematical exactitude fixing precise dates and periods of promotion
- A plaintiff with a real risk of losing his present job before the end of his working life is entitled to damages for loss of earning capacity, assessed on the two-stage approach in Moeliker v Reyrolle
- An appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's award of general damages unless it is so high or so low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs to the extent of substituting Kshs 384,000 for the amount awarded by the learned judge under the heading of general damages for loss of future income
- 2.Substituting Kshs 4,257 for the award of Kshs 29,857 in respect of special damages
- 3.Cross-appeal allowed with costs to the extent of substituting Kshs 225,000 for the award of Kshs 130,000 made for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
- 4.Total award of Kshs 613,257 to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Delivered the leading judgment: set aside the speculative award for lost promotion, substituted an award for loss of earning capacity of Kshs 384,000, reduced special damages to Kshs 4,257, and increased general damages for pain and suffering to Kshs 225,000 on the cross-appeal; total Kshs 613,257, appeal and cross-appeal allowed with costs.
In the result I would allow the appeal to the extent of substituting an award of Kshs 384,000 for the figure of Kshs 522,800p. 4
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court (appeal and cross-appeal from Schofield Ag J at Mombasa)
Relief refused
#Appellant's argument that no award for loss of earning capacity should be made
Court found a real risk of early retirement supported the head of damages
Respondent's submission that average monthly loss be computed at Kshs 2,000
Court preferred Kshs 3,200 per month as prospective loss
Costs
Appeal allowed with costs; cross-appeal allowed with costs (both parties having had a measure of success, the awards were adjusted accordingly)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the result I would allow the appeal to the extent of substituting an award of Kshs 384,000 for the figure of Kshs 522,800, (which should be Kshs 532,800) awarded by the learned judge under the heading of general damages for loss of future earnings and of reducing the award of special damages from Kshs 29,857 to Kshs 4,257.
I would also allow the crossappeal to the extent of substituting an increased sum of Kshs 225,000 for the Kshs 130,000 given by the High Court.
The total of these amounts is Kshs 613,257; which represents the damages to which, in my opinion, the respondent is entitled in this case.
The term “special damages” means ‘out of pocket expenses and loss of earnings actually incurred up to the date of trial’.
It is an existing loss; the plaintiff is already weakened to that extent, though fortunately she is protected for the time being against suffering any financial damage because she does not, at present have to go into the labour market.
As regards costs, both the appellant and the respondent have had a measure of success and I would accordingly allow the appeal, with costs, and allow the cross-appeal, with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment itself notes arithmetic errors in the trial court's awards: the subtotal is stated both as 522,800 and 532,800, and the judgment figure as 682,657 versus 692,657
The opening narrative states damages totalling Kshs 682,627, which does not reconcile with the itemised award figures recited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Attorney General v Waiyera [1983] KECA 41 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1983). Civil Appeal (Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1983/41/eng@1983-03-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.