Stanley Gicheru Njogo v Kijara Joseph Kagu & another [2018] KECA 749 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal restored a Ksh.700,000 injury award, ruling judges must give reasons before cutting damages they deem excessive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge on first appeal erred in finding that the trial magistrate's award of Ksh.700,000/- in general damages was manifestly excessive and reducing it to Ksh.400,000/-
- 2.Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the awards made
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court was entitled to interfere with the trial magistrate's award of general damages of Ksh.700,000/- as manifestly excessive
The award of Ksh.700,000/- was not manifestly excessive; the trial magistrate took into account the injuries, comparable decisions and inflationary trends, and the Judge erred in reducing it to Ksh.400,000/- without giving a rationale.
The court reviewed the principles governing appellate interference with damages awards: interference is warranted only where a wrong factor was taken into account or the award is an erroneous estimate. The trial magistrate had considered the injuries detailed in Dr. Wokabi's medical report, comparable past decisions, and inflation. Given those considerations, Ksh.700,000/- could not be called excessive. The Judge's bare conclusion that the award was manifestly excessive, without rationale, was an error of law justifying the second appellate court's intervention.
Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the awards, an issue the first appellate court failed to address
The Judge erred by omitting to address interest; under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act the appellant was entitled to interest at court rates on general damages from the date of judgment and on special damages from the date of filing suit, taking into account sums already paid.
The record was silent on interest, an apparent omission by the learned Judge. Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to order interest on a money decree. The court therefore exercised that power itself, granting interest at court rates on general damages from judgment and on special damages from filing, with amounts already paid to the appellant to be offset in calculating interest.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the court addresses issues of law only, and the assessment of damages is a question of law; appellate courts are slow to interfere with two concurrent findings on quantum and will do so only where the trial court took into account a wrong factor or the award is so high or so low as to be an erroneous estimate.
- A first appellate judge who interferes with a damages award as manifestly excessive must give the rationale for that finding; an unreasoned conclusion of excessiveness is an error justifying interference by the second appellate court.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Sergon, J. is set aside
- 2.The judgment of the trial court, Hon. Obulutsa, is affirmed, restoring general damages of Ksh.700,000/- (in addition to special damages of Ksh.34,600/- and future medical expenses of Ksh.814,600/-)
- 3.Interest at court rates on general damages from the date of judgment, and interest on special damages from the date of filing suit, with sums already paid to the appellant taken into account
- 4.The appellant shall have the costs of this appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal 592 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under the court's appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the High Court (question of law only on second appeal)
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.
The upshot of the above is that the appeal is allowed and the judgment of Sergon, J. is set aside. The Judgment of the trial Court Hon. Obulutsa is affirmed. The appellant shall have the costs of this appeal.
As this is a second appeal, we address issues of law only and the quantum or assessment of damages is a question of law.
A sum of Ksh.700,000/- given the considerations made by the trial magistrate cannot be said to have been manifestly excessive.
We think it was wrong for the Judge to find that the award was “manifestly excessive” without giving the rationale for his findings, unlike the trial magistrate who pegged his findings on the injuries, past decisions and the fact of inflation.
On the sum awarded the respondent was entitled to interest at court rates on general damages from the date of judgment and interest from the date of filing in respect of special damages, again at court rates.
Issues in the judgment
#Minor typographical errors in the judgment: the appellant's special damages were pleaded as Ksh.34,900/- but the trial court awarded Ksh.34,600/-; the judgment also refers to the appellant as 'the respondent' in the passages discussing interest ('On the sum awarded the respondent was entitled to interest') and in the quotation of the High Court judgment, which are apparent drafting slips.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- JKN (A minor suing through next friend and mother DWN) & another v Chege & another (Civil Appeal 335 of 2019) [2026] KECA 1610 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1610 (KLR)31 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanley Gicheru Njogo v Kijara Joseph Kagu & another [2018] KECA 749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/749/eng@2018-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.