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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 280 of 2018· [2019] KECA 356 (KLR)

Patrick Kariuki Muiruri & 3 others v Attorney General [2019] KECA 356 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 September 2019
DMD.K. MusingaSKS. Gatembu KairuSKS. ole Kantai
2,704 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that families claiming damages for a death must prove actual earnings and dependency; future prospects alone won't increase an award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by Sergon, J. in favour of the family of Dr. James Ng'ang'a Kariuki Muiruri, a 29-year-old Kenyan law postgraduate shot dead by two police officers in Westlands, Nairobi on 24th January 2009. Liability had been settled by consent on 20th April 2016, attaching fully to the Attorney General vicariously for the officers' acts, so the trial was confined to damages. The High Court awarded Shs.15,857,730 comprising pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life, loss of dependency of Shs.12,000,000 (computed on a multiplicand of Shs.120,000 per month, a 25-year multiplier and a one third dependency ratio), special damages of Shs.1,557,730 and exemplary damages of Shs.2,000,000, plus costs and interest. The appellants argued the deceased was in employment, that a higher dependency ratio was warranted, and that exemplary damages should have been Shs.20,000,000, citing the Biwott case. The Court of Appeal, applying Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company and Butt v Khan, reconsidered the evidence and agreed with the trial judge that the deceased was not employed: the letter from Professor White described prospective earnings, and the email showed only a scholarship. The multiplicand, multiplier and one third dependency ratio were reasonable, and the exemplary damages award was not so low as to warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety with each party bearing its own costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the deceased was employed at the time of death so as to fix the multiplicand

Holding

The deceased was a student awaiting graduation and was not employed; the professor's letter described future prospects, not existing employment

Reasoning

The court examined the evidence of the 1st appellant and the letter and email from Prof White. The letter gave a general view of what a completed PhD graduate would earn on first employment and future prospects, but did not state the deceased was employed. The email showed a scholarship covering fees and maintenance of £12,000. The trial judge's conclusion that the deceased was not employed was correct.

p. 3
02

Standard for appellate interference with an award of damages

Holding

An appellate court will not disturb an award unless it is inordinately high or low, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence materially

Reasoning

Relying on Butt v Khan, the court restated that interference requires a showing of wrong principles or material misapprehension of evidence producing an entirely erroneous estimate. Applying that standard, the global award of Shs.12,000,000 for loss of dependency and Shs.2,000,000 exemplary damages were reasonable and could not be disturbed.

p. 3
03

Appropriate dependency ratio where employment is not proved

Holding

One third dependency was appropriate and the appellants produced no material justifying a higher ratio

Reasoning

The court found no evidence on record supporting a dependency greater than one third, particularly given the finding that the deceased was not employed. The trial judge's multiplier approach of Shs.120,000 per month over 25 years at one third dependency, yielding Shs.12,000,000, was reasonable for a deceased aged 29 whose earnings were unproved.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is shown the judge proceeded on wrong principles, misapprehended the evidence in a material respect, or arrived at a figure inordinately high or low
  • On a first appeal the Court of Appeal must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Fatal Accidents Act

Cases cited (3)

  • Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Limited
    [1968] E.A. 123
  • Butt v Khan
    [1981] KLR 349
  • Kipyator Nicholas Kiprono Biwott v Clays Limited & 6 Others
    [2000] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 4 of 2010
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (Constitution of Kenya, Article 164; appeal from the High Court as of right)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patrick Kariuki Muiruri & 3 others v Attorney General [2019] KECA 356 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/356/eng@2019-09-27

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