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 AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 167 of 2013· [2017] KECA 74 (KLR)

Samuel Kimemia Gathoga v Njoro Canning Factory (k) Ltd

Court of Appeal
22 November 2017
PWP. N. WakiRNR. N. NambuyePKP. O. Kiage
1,730 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

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal raised an injured worker's compensation from Kshs. 30,000 to Kshs. 80,000, ruling courts must account for inflation when cutting damages awards.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a second appeal from the High Court at Nakuru (H. A. Omondi, J.), which had affirmed the trial magistrate's finding of 100% liability against the respondent employer but reduced general damages for workplace injuries (cut wounds to the appellant's fingers sustained on 7 June 2007) from Kshs. 130,000 to Kshs. 30,000. The appellant challenged only the reduction in quantum. The Court of Appeal noted that its mandate on a second appeal is restricted to matters of law, and reiterated the settled principles that an appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it 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 a material respect; nor may an appellate court substitute its own figure merely because it would have awarded differently at first instance. The Court found that the learned Judge failed to consider material factors: the respondent's own suggested figure of Kshs. 50,000, the age of the comparable awards she relied on, and the inflationary trend and decline in the purchasing power of the Kenyan shilling. Holding that damages are meant to compensate rather than enrich the victim, the Court allowed the appeal in part, revising the award upwards from Kshs. 30,000 to Kshs. 80,000, with interest at court rates from the date of the trial court's judgment until payment in full, and awarded the appellant costs of both this appeal and the appeal in the High Court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the learned Judge erred in revising downwards the trial court's award of general damages

Holding

Yes. The Judge failed to take into consideration material considerations, namely the respondent's own suggested figure of Kshs. 50,000, the age of the comparable case law awards relied upon, and the inflationary trend and decline in the purchasing power of the Kenyan shilling. Sufficient cause was therefore shown to interfere with her discretion and revise the award upwards to Kshs. 80,000.

Reasoning

The court applied the established principles governing appellate interference with awards of damages: an appellate court will not disturb an award unless it is inordinately high or low, represents an entirely erroneous estimate, or was based on wrong principles or misapprehension of the evidence. It found the Judge overlooked the respondent's own proposal of Kshs. 50,000 and failed to consider the age of the comparable awards and inflationary trends - material considerations she ought not to have overlooked. Bearing in mind that damages compensate rather than enrich, the court revised the award to Kshs. 80,000 with interest and costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal's mandate is restricted to matters of law and it will not interfere with findings of fact of the two lower courts unless they misapprehended the evidence
  • An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it 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
  • An appellate court is not justified in substituting its own figure for that awarded below merely because it would have awarded a different figure at first instance
  • In assessing damages, a court must consider the age of comparable awards and the inflationary trend and decline in the purchasing power of the Kenyan shilling

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The award of general damages is revised upwards from Kshs. 30,000 to Kshs. 80,000
  2. 2.The amount will carry interest at court rates from the date of judgment in the trial court until payment in full
  3. 3.The appellant will have costs both on this appeal and the appeal before the High Court
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2010
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal restricted to matters of law (matters of law only on a second appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samuel Kimemia Gathoga v Njoro Canning Factory (k) Ltd", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/74/eng@2017-11-22

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