Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [1993] KECA 64 (KLR)

Nairobi Bus Union v Dexter Ireri Imanene [1993] KECA 64 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
22 November 1993
FAF.K. ApalooJGJ.M. GachuhiROR.S.C. Omolo
1,832 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondent, then a Chief Inspector of Police, was seriously injured on 27th February 1983 when a bus owned by the appellant, in which he was a fare-paying passenger, veered off the Nakuru-Kericho Road and overturned. He sued for general and special damages. Before the High Court (Aganyanya, J), a consent order recorded judgment on liability for the respondent, and trial proceeded on quantum on the respondent's own evidence together with four medical reports produced by consent. By judgment dated 24th May 1989 the trial judge awarded Shs 750,000/= general damages plus Kshs 13,050/= special damages (Shs 763,050/= with interest and costs), disallowing loss of earnings and prospective earnings. The appellant appealed on three grounds, contending the award was so manifestly excessive as to be an erroneous estimate, that the judge relied on an inapposite authority, and that he failed to find the respondent had recovered. The Court of Appeal (Apaloo CJ, Gachuhi and Omolo JJA) applied the settled test in Butt v Khan, holding that assessment of damages is essentially an exercise of the trial judge's discretion and that interference is warranted only where the award is inordinately high or low or rests on wrong principles or a material misapprehension of the evidence. Although the injuries in the Patel case, on which the trial judge relied, may have been medically more serious, their effects upon the victims were remarkably similar, particularly the brain damage, loss of concentration and career impact. The respondent's unchallenged evidence of losing a superintendent's promotion course went unrebuted, the appellant having called no evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with an award of general damages

Holding

The appellate court will not disturb an award merely because it might itself have awarded a different or lower sum; interference is only warranted where the award is inordinately high or low, represents an entirely erroneous estimate, or rests on wrong principles or a material misapprehension of the evidence

Reasoning

Assessment of general damages is essentially an exercise of the trial judge's discretion, and there can never be a mathematical formula for it. The Court applied the test in Butt v Khan. It found the trial judge correctly compared the respondent's injuries with those in the Patel case, whose effects on the victims were remarkably similar, and that the appellant had called no evidence to challenge the respondent's testimony about the consequences of his injuries. A possible difference in the figure the appellate court might itself have awarded is not a ground for interference.

p. 2
02

Comparability of injuries in awarding general damages

Holding

In comparing injuries across decided cases, what matters is not merely the medical listing of the injuries but their effects upon the victim; the trial judge was correct in treating the respondent's injuries as comparable to those in the Patel case even though the latter's injuries may have been medically more serious

Reasoning

The appellant argued that the Patel injuries were far more serious, pointing to the respondent's brain damage being assessed at only 2-3% and his continued police career. The Court held that the effects of the two sets of injuries were remarkably similar: both plaintiffs suffered permanent brain damage, loss of memory and concentration, and impairment of their working capacity. The respondent's own unchallenged evidence showed he had to abandon a superintendent's course because of the drugs used to treat him, losing the chance of promotion.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's award of damages unless the award is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence in some material respect

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.The appellant to pay the costs of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nairobi Bus Union v Dexter Ireri Imanene [1993] KECA 64 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1993). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1993/64/eng@1993-11-22

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.