Bore v Board of Trustees Meru Diocese Kirimari Parish
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal cut a road accident payout from Kshs 1.4 million to Kshs 800,000, confirming courts cannot pay for unproven lost income hidden inside general damages.
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 had a basis to substitute the award of Kshs. 1,400,000/- in general damages with the sum of Kshs. 800,000/-
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court was entitled to interfere with the trial magistrate's global award of general damages
Yes - the trial magistrate acted on a wrong principle by finding loss of earning capacity unproven yet compensating it within the global award, warranting appellate intervention
The trial magistrate expressly found that the appellant failed to prove her occupation and income, yet proceeded to award the same as part of general damages. The Court held this was self-contradictory and a misdirection in law. The High Court, having identified that error of principle, was entitled to re-assess the award by reference to comparable injuries and comparable awards, arriving at Kshs. 800,000/-, which was not so inordinately low as to be an entirely erroneous estimate.
Whether uncontested medical evidence shields an award of damages from appellate interference
No - uncontested evidence on the nature and extent of injuries does not prevent interference where the award was arrived at on an erroneous principle
The appellant argued the injuries evidence was unchallenged and uncontradicted. The Court held that while the medical evidence was uncontested, that fact alone did not shield the award once it was shown the award rested on an erroneous principle, namely the subsumption of unproven loss of earning capacity into the global figure.
Whether the High Court erred in finding the trial court had awarded damages for loss of future earning capacity when no separate award was made
Although no separate award was made under those heads, the trial court's reasoning shows the unproven claims influenced the global award
The appellant contended the trial magistrate never awarded loss of earnings or earning capacity. The Court, on re-evaluation, held that while no separate award was made, the magistrate's own reasoning - finding the claims unproven yet awarding them as part of general damages - demonstrates those unproven claims influenced the ultimate global award, justifying the High Court's intervention.
Legal principles established
#- A court may not circumvent the requirement of proof of loss of earning capacity by subsuming it into a global award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities; the two are distinct heads of damage with distinct evidentiary requirements
- On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse
- An appellate court may interfere with an award of damages only where the trial court applied wrong principles, took into account irrelevant factors or omitted relevant ones, or the award is an entirely erroneous estimate
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal on quantum is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Chuka
- Chuka HCCA No. 16 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal confined to matters of law
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the trial court's award of Kshs. 1,400,000/- in general damages
The High Court correctly interfered on the basis that the trial magistrate acted on a wrong principle by compensating unproven loss of earning capacity within the global award
Costs of the High Court appeal to the appellant
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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 law does not permit a court to circumvent the requirement of proof of loss of earning capacity by subsuming it into the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
The said awards are distinct heads of damage and each governed by its own evidentiary requirements.
the trial Magistrate's findings were self- contradictory and consequently amounted to a misdirection in law warranting appellate intervention
Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal on quantum lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
It is trite that assessment of damages are matters that are within the discretion of the trial Court and the appellate Court ought to respect that discretion if properly exercised.
Issues in the judgment
#Same authority cited with two different years - [2013] eKLR in submissions and [2015] eKLR in the High Court's reliance
Memorandum of Appeal dated 23rd August 2021 yet the appeal is numbered Civil Appeal E015 of 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bore v Board of Trustees Meru Diocese Kirimari Parish", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E015 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1761/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.