Isl Kenya Limited v Ilovi (Appeal 4 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 909 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cut a factory accident payout for lost earnings from KSh 3.19 million to KSh 1 million but kept the rest of the injury award intact.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the general damages award of Kshs 1,000,000 was inordinately high
The award was not disturbed; the trial court correctly considered the injuries and comparable principles.
The court applied the Kemfro Africa principle that interference is warranted only on erroneous principle or an inordinately high or low award. It reviewed the medical reports showing serious hand injuries and permanent disability, noted the appellant itself had proposed Kshs 850,000 before the trial court, and held the magistrate laid down the correct factors. It found no justification for interference despite the appellant's authorities suggesting Kshs 500,000.
Whether the loss of earning capacity award was assessed on wrong principles
The trial court erred in adopting a multiplier of 24 years and in stating the disability was 30% based on the respondent's report; the award was set aside and substituted with Kshs 1,000,000 calculated on a 16-year multiplier at 30% incapacity.
The court found the trial court misapprehended the record: the respondent's doctor assessed 20% disability and the appellant's 25%, not 30%. Applying the Alpharama multiplicand/multiplier approach, the court adopted a 16-year multiplier (age 44 to retirement at 60) and a monthly multiplicand of Kshs 13,287, computing 30% x Kshs 13,287 x 12 x 16 = Kshs 765,331.20, then enhanced it to Kshs 1,000,000 to factor in statutory minimum wage reviews, while discounting for the possibility the respondent might have lost his job for other causes.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court may only interfere with a trial court's assessment of damages where an irrelevant factor was taken into account, a relevant factor omitted, the award is inordinately high or low amounting to an erroneous estimate, or the assessment is not based on evidence.
- The duty of a first appellate court is to reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- An award for loss of earning capacity can be made whether or not the plaintiff is employed at the time of trial, to compensate for the risk of losing a job or diminished chances of obtaining alternative employment.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal succeeds in part
- 2.Award for loss of earning capacity of Kshs 3,192,681.60 set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs 1,000,000 under loss of earning capacity
- 3.Rest of the trial court's award (general damages of Kshs 1,000,000, future medical expenses of Kshs 200,000 and special damages of Kshs 3,000) undisturbed
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal
- 5.Costs and interest in the lower court not disturbed
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Mavoko
- CMCC No. 637 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Magistrates' Court (appeal against judgment and decree in CMCC No. 637 of 2016); specific statutory provision not cited in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isl Kenya Limited v Ilovi (Appeal 4 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 909 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal from Mavoko CMCC No. 637 of 2016 (Memorandum of Appeal dated 29th September 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/909/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.