Muriithi v My Beauty Transporters Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal 242 of 2019) [2025] KECA 516 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that informal-sector earners without records can still claim lost earnings after injury, boosting this accident victim's award by millions.
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 erred in denying the claim for loss of earning capacity for lack of documentary proof where the appellant worked in the informal sector
- 2.Whether the learned Judge was justified in awarding Kshs 650,000 instead of Kshs 6,500,000 for the shoulder disarticulation prosthesis
- 3.Whether the learned Judge erred in failing to consider replacement costs of the prostheses
- 4.Whether the appellant was entitled to damages for loss of consortium
- 5.Whether the awards of general damages were otherwise fair and commensurate
Key legal issues
#Proof of loss of earning capacity without documentary evidence
The trial judge erred in disallowing the claim entirely for lack of documentation; the Court assessed a reasonable daily income of Kshs 500 and awarded Kshs 3,600,000 using a 20-year multiplier
The Court held that the degree of certainty of proof depends on the circumstances, and rejecting undocumented informal-sector earnings outright does injustice to illiterate Kenyans who keep no records. A wrongdoer takes his victim as he finds him. The judge improperly penalised the appellant's lack of sophistication. The Court adopted Kshs 500 per day (Kshs 15,000 monthly) with a 20-year multiplier, producing Kshs 3,600,000.
Cost of the shoulder disarticulation prosthesis
There was no proper and cogent basis for departing from PW3's expert quotation of Kshs 6,500,000; the award was enhanced from Kshs 650,000 to Kshs 6,500,000
The Court found no prescribed number of treatment options must be placed before the court; if the respondents believed cheaper options existed, they could have adduced evidence. The trial judge's assumption of cheaper options was speculation. Expert evidence must be given the highest regard and rejected only on firm grounds; none existed here, so the full expert quotation was substituted.
Loss of consortium claimed by the injured plaintiff
The claim is unavailable to the injured plaintiff himself and is compensable, if at all, under loss of amenities; the ground was disallowed
Relying on Mwaura Muiruri v Suera Flowers Limited, the Court held consortium — companionship, love, affection, comfort, mutual services, sexual intercourse — belongs to the married state and only a spouse of the injured person may claim it. The appellant's own inability to perform marital duties falls under loss of amenities. The ground lacked merit.
Appellate restraint on quantum
The Court reiterated that quantum is a question of fact for the trial judge and interference is only justified on established grounds
Citing Jane Chelagat Bor and Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tete, the Court restated that assessment of general damages is discretionary and appellate substitution merely because a different figure would have been awarded is impermissible; interference requires wrong principles, misapprehension of evidence, or an entirely erroneous estimate.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court may interfere with quantum only where the trial court applied wrong principles, misapprehended the evidence, or arrived at an entirely erroneous estimate
- Earnings of informal-sector litigants who keep no records may be proved by evidence other than documentary proof; lack of sophistication in record-keeping must not be held against a plaintiff
- Expert evidence is entitled to the highest possible regard and must not be rejected except on firm grounds; a court's contrary speculation is insufficient
- Loss of consortium lies only for the spouse of the injured person, not for the injured plaintiff personally
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the order disallowing loss of earnings and substitute therefor an award of Kshs 3,600,000
- 2.Set aside the award of Kshs 650,000 in respect of shoulder disarticulation prosthesis and substitute therefor an award of Kshs 6,500,000
- 3.Dismiss the ground of appeal on loss of consortium
- 4.Award the costs of the appeal to the appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- Civil Case No. 262 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court (appellate court's duty to reconsider evidence, as reflected in Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd)
Relief refused
#Damages for loss of consortium
Loss of consortium is a claim available to the injured person's spouse, not to the injured appellant himself
Replacement costs of prostheses as a separate head (ground that replacement costs ought to have been factored in)
Not separately addressed or granted beyond the enhanced prosthesis award
Costs
The costs of the appeal are awarded to the appellant.
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.
In the premises we allow the appeal to the extent of loss of earning capacity which we award in the sum Kshs 3,600,000 and enhance the award in respect of shoulder disarticulation prosthesis from Kshs 650,000 to Kshs 6,500,000.
The costs of the appeal are awarded to the appellant.
A wrongdoer must take his victim as he finds him and the defendants ought not to be heard to say that the plaintiff should be denied his earnings because he did not develop more sophisticated business methods.
As a rule, expert evidence is entitled to the highest possible regard.
In our view, there is no prescribed number of options for future medical treatment that ought to be availed before the court can determine the costs.
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.
- Tumwesigye v Mutua & another (Both Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Michael Mutua Kavuli - Deceased) (Civil Appeal E127 of 2023) [2026] KECA 1333 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1333 (KLR)10 Jul 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriithi v My Beauty Transporters Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal 242 of 2019) [2025] KECA 516 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (from Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 262 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/516/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.