Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2023] KEELRC 1221 (KLR)

Sunflag Textiles and Knitwear Mills Limited v Gachoka (Appeal 20 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1221 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 May 2023
BOByram Ongaya
1,433 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court cut a worker's injury payout from Sh1 million to Sh600,000, ruling the trial court used more severe cases to justify the award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The respondent, a machine attendant, was injured on 12.09.2014 when a stenter machine malfunctioned and entrapped his right hand in the padding mangle while working for the appellant. He sued for general and special damages, alleging negligence. By consent recorded on 13.07.2017, liability was apportioned 80:20 in the respondent's favour and the trial Court's role was confined to assessing damages. On 08.12.2017 the trial Magistrate awarded general damages of Kshs 1,000,000.00 for pain and suffering and Kshs 483,000.00 for diminished earning capacity, less a WIBA deduction and 20% contribution, yielding a net award of Kshs 1,013,432.48. The appellant appealed against quantum only, contending the award was too high for the injuries, that the trial Court ignored its submissions on quantum, conventional awards, and the medical reports assessing 35%-45% incapacitation with no bone or joint involvement. The Court, applying the Butt v Khan principle on interference with damages awards and its first-appeal duty to re-evaluate the evidence, found the trial Court had relied on authorities involving more severe, non-comparable injuries and had given no reason to prefer them over more recent comparable awards of about Kshs 500,000.00. It held the award inordinately high and substituted Kshs 600,000.00 for pain and suffering, recomputing the net award to Kshs 693,432.48 and varying the decree accordingly. Owing to jurisdictional delays not attributable to the parties, each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the award of Kshs 1,000,000.00 general damages was inordinately high

Holding

The award was inordinately high in view of recent awards for comparable injuries; Kshs 600,000.00 would be just for 35%-45% incapacitation

Reasoning

The trial Court relied on decisions involving more severe injuries (degloving with multiple fractures and extensive surgery) and offered no explanation for preferring them over the appellant's more recent authorities awarding Kshs 500,000.00 for comparable degloving injuries with similar incapacity. Applying the Butt v Khan principles, the Court substituted its own figure and recomputed the net award after the WIBA deduction and 20% liability apportionment.

p. 3
02

Duty of the Court on a first appeal

Holding

The Court must consider and analyse the evidence before the trial Court and reach its own conclusions, aware it did not hear the evidence

Reasoning

The Court adopted the appellant's submission on the standard first-appeal duty, noting the injuries were not in dispute and both medical reports (45% and 35% incapacitation, no bone or joint involvement) framed the assessment. It then re-evaluated the comparable-awards material afresh rather than deferring to the trial Magistrate's assessment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence
  • On a first appeal the court must consider and analyse the evidence before the trial Court and arrive at its own conclusions, bearing in mind it did not hear the evidence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The trial Court's orders per the Judgment varied to the extent that the net award shall be Kshs 693,432.48 and the decree flowing from that judgment varied accordingly
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the appeal

Authorities

#

Cases cited (6)

  • Butt v Khan
    [1981] KLR 349
  • Easy Coach Limited v Emily Nyangasi
    [2017] eKLR
  • Tononoka Rolling Mills v James To Bozo Were
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kim Tea Factory & another v Peterson Watheka Wanjohi
    [2008] eKLR
  • Dedan Njoroge Mwangi & another v Jane Wanjiru
    [2020] eKLR
  • Donald Mwarangi & another v Mejumaa Nuru Mwakio & another
    [2017] eKLR
On appeal from
Trial Court (Principal Magistrate's Court)
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the trial Court's judgment on quantum in a work-injury claim

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sunflag Textiles and Knitwear Mills Limited v Gachoka (Appeal 20 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 1221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1221/eng@2023-05-25

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