Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v AMK (Suing as the mother and next friend of JMK - Minor (Civil Appeal 58 of 2020) [2021] KECA 52 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld a Kshs. 22 million award to a girl maimed by live power lines, confirming companies must challenge expert evidence at trial, not on appeal.
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 award of Kshs. 16,500,000 for future medical expenses was justified although not specifically quantified in the plaint
- 2.Whether the award of Kshs. 4,000,000 as general damages for pain and suffering was inordinately high and an erroneous estimate
- 3.Whether the award of Kshs. 1,000,000 for loss of earning capacity was justified absent evidence of the minor's academic performance
- 4.Whether the trial Judge proceeded on wrong principles in assessing damages and failed to apply applicable precedent
- 5.Whether the trial court erred in computing future medical expenses without fully using the prosthetist's report (cross-appeal)
- 6.Whether the multiplier of 15 years applied in computing maintenance expenses was inordinately low (cross-appeal)
Key legal issues
#Pleading and proof of future medical expenses
The award of future medical expenses was proper; pleading the need for a functional prosthesis and additional medical care sufficed and an exact figure need not be stated in the plaint
Relying on Tracom Limited v Hassan Mohamed Adan and Kenya Bus Services Ltd v Gituma, the Court held that although future medical expenses are special damages within general damages, once the need for future care is pleaded the plaintiff need not state the exact amount, since it depends on factors like place of treatment and currency fluctuations. An approximate sum suffices. The plaint here pleaded the need for additional medical care including functional prosthesis.
Interference with discretionary awards of damages
The Court would not interfere with the awards of general damages and loss of earning capacity as the trial Judge considered no extraneous material and the awards were fair given the child's 100% disability
Damages are discretionary and an appellate court is slow to interfere, doing so only on the established Tracom/Ilanga principles. Having re-evaluated the record, and deferring to the trial Judge who saw the minor testify and observed her devastation, the Court found no misdirection and no over-compensation, as no sum could restore the child to her previous condition.
Weight of unrebutted documentary evidence and uncalled makers of reports
The contradictions alleged in the two prosthetist's reports could not assist the appellant, which was served with the reports, raised no objection to their production, and never sought the maker's cross-examination nor called rebuttal evidence
The reports were served on 28th January 2019 and produced without objection. The appellant could have required John Muchoki's attendance but chose not to. Nor did it testify or produce any document to disprove the Ottobock quotation or show that transportation and assembly costs were included. Its complaint about unreliability of the expert evidence therefore fails.
Multiplier for maintenance of prosthesis (cross-appeal)
The 15-year multiplier adopted by the trial court was within its discretion; the proposed 43-year multiplier was not justified and expert report figures are only a guide
The trial Judge gave a reasoned basis for the 15-year multiplier, namely accelerated payment allowing investment of the monies. The respondent's 43-year proposal rested on an erroneous premise about the child's age, she being 15, not 6, at the time of the incident. The Court found the overall award fair and just and declined to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- Future medical expenses, though in the nature of special damages, need only be pleaded as a need for future care with an approximate sum; the exact amount need not be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- An appellate court will interfere with a trial judge's assessment of damages only where the judge considered matters he ought not to have, failed to consider what he should have, misapprehended the case, or the award is so low or high as to reflect an improper award
- Where a defendant calls no evidence, the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence is to be believed as unrebutted unless displaced in cross-examination
- A party who is served with documents, raises no objection to their production and makes no application for the maker to be cross-examined cannot later fault reliance on those documents
- Amounts given in medical or expert reports on future costs are only a guide to the court and the judge is not bound to adopt them to the last digit
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.The cross-appeal is dismissed
- 3.Each party bears its own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under Rule 29(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules (re-assessment and re-evaluation of evidence)
Relief refused
#Appellant's prayer to set aside or reduce the award of future medical expenses of Kshs. 16,500,000
The respondent pleaded the need for additional medical care including functional prosthesis; exact amounts need not be specially pleaded, and the appellant called no evidence to rebut the quotation
Appellant's prayer to reduce general damages from Kshs. 4,000,000 to Kshs. 2,000,000
No sufficient reason to interfere with the trial court's discretionary assessment given the devastating nature of the injuries
Appellant's prayer to reduce loss of earning capacity from Kshs. 1,000,000 to Kshs. 300,000
Covered by the court's finding that no extraneous material was considered and the award should not be disturbed
Cross-appellant's prayer to enhance future medical expenses to Kshs. 20,000,000 and apply a 43-year multiplier
The 43-year multiplier was not justified; amounts in expert reports are only a guide and the Judge gave reasons for 15 years
Costs
Each party bears its own costs of the appeal and cross-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.
once the plaintiif pleads that there would be need for further medication and hence future medical expenses will be necessary, the plaintiif may not need to specially state what amount it will be
We can, however, interfere only where the trial Judge either considered matters that he ought not to have considered or did not consider what he should have considered or misapprehended certain aspects of the case, or on looking at the award in itself the award is either too low or too high that it must have refiected improper award
Where a party fails to call evidence in support of its pleading (be it a plaint or defence), the evidence of the opposing party is to be believed as having not been rebutted, unless efiectively and displaced in cross-examination
No amount of money could ever restore the child to her previous condition. No suficient reason has been given to warrant interference with that award and therefore that ground fails.
Ultimately, we find the appeal and cross appeal devoid of merit and dismiss both. As no party has succeeded we order that each party bears its own costs of the appeal and cross appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently states the award for loss of future earnings and pain and suffering in the summary of grounds (para 26 refers to Kshs. 4,000,000 for loss of future earnings and Kshs. 1,000,000 for pain and suffering), whereas the trial award recorded earlier was Kshs. 4,000,000 general damages, Kshs. 1,000,000 loss of earning capacity and Kshs. 556,160 special damages
The trial award for future medical expenses is stated as Kshs. 17,500,000 in the narrative of the judgment but the tabulated award and later discussion refer to Kshs. 16,500,000 (and the quoted trial court excerpt awards Kshs. 16,000,000)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Karanga v Cropchem East Africa Ltd (Civil Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 528 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 528 (KLR)11 Aug 2026followed
- Kamau v Wathari & another (Civil Suit E117 of 2020) [2025] KEMC 254 (KLR)[2025] KEMC 254 (KLR)12 Jun 2025
- Kipronoh v Oloo (Civil Suit 867 of 2022) [2025] KEMC 50 (KLR)[2025] KEMC 50 (KLR)11 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v AMK (Suing as the mother and next friend of JMK - Minor (Civil Appeal 58 of 2020) [2021] KECA 52 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Appeal ( memorandum of appeal dated 30th April, 2020 ). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/52/eng@2021-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.