Samuel Mwaura Waweru & 2 others v Bonafide Clearing and Forwarding Company Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you must prove income with actual evidence — written submissions and cited cases cannot substitute for testimony when claiming loss of dependency.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Limits of appellate interference with an award of general damages
The appellate mandate is not open-ended; the trial court's discretion in assessing general damages will only be disturbed where wrong principles were applied or the evidence was misapprehended, producing an inordinately high or low figure representing an entirely erroneous estimate.
Relying on Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tete, the Court held that it is not justified in substituting its own figure merely because it would have awarded a different amount at first instance. The appellant had to demonstrate an error of principle or misapprehension of evidence; merely disagreeing with the global figure of Kshs.5,500,000 did not meet that threshold, so the trial judge's discretion stood.
Burden of proving the multiplicand and dependency facts
Under sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the plaintiff bore the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, the deceased's expected future earnings and the parents' circumstances; failing to testify or call evidence, the appellant could not rely on submissions or cited authorities as proof.
The Court noted the appellant opted not to testify or call witnesses and did not produce the documentary evidence through agreed admission. Following Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira and Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Murithi, the Court held that submissions only concretise a party's case and cannot substitute material proof of income. The trial judge's finding that the proposed salary was 'plucked from the air' was upheld.
Choice between multiplier approach and global award
Where there is hardly any material to establish the key elements of the multiplier approach, particularly the earnings of the deceased, the multiplier approach is unsuited and the court may properly adopt a global award.
The Court endorsed the trial judge's reasoning that the authorities cited were useful guides but could not substitute material proof of income. Relying on Ainu Shamsi Hauliers Limited v Moses Sakwa, the Court reiterated that the multiplier approach is a method of assessment, not a dogma, and may be abandoned where the facts do not favour it. The trial court's global figure of Kshs.5,500,000, which modestly improved on the respondents' offer of Kshs.5,000,000, was therefore reasonable.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court may interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by a trial court only where the trial court applied wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence so as to reach an entirely erroneous estimate.
- The multiplier approach is not a principle of law and may be abandoned where the facts, including absence of proof of earnings, do not favour its application; a global award is then appropriate.
- Matters pleaded in written submissions do not constitute evidence; a party must prove factual matters such as the deceased's expected earnings on a balance of probabilities.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Appellant to pay costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (no specific constitutional/statutory provision quoted in the judgment)
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.
- AGM (Suing on Behalf of a Minor AMG - Deceased) v Buscar East Africa Limited (Civil Case 273 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 89 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 89 (KLR)26 Mar 2026
- Mutunga & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of James Musyoka Mutunga - Deceased) v Menengai Oil Refineries Limited (Civil Case E117 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 85 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 85 (KLR)24 Mar 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Mwaura Waweru & 2 others v Bonafide Clearing and Forwarding Company Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/620/eng@2025-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.