Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtPartially Allowed

Not stated in the judgment (appellants v respondent, road accident damages appeal)

High Court of Kenya
8 January 2020
DMD. S. Majanja
1,817 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

When claiming road accident damages in Kenya, the court will adjust your award based on comparable injuries and current economic reality, not just the passage of time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the High Court at Kiambu against a trial magistrate's award of Kshs. 1,400,000 as general damages to a respondent injured in a road accident involving motor vehicle KBF 603H, liability having been agreed at 80:20 against the appellants. The respondent sustained closed fractures of both femurs and soft tissue injuries; both medical reports (Dr Karanja and Dr Wambugu) confirmed the injuries had healed without permanent disability. The appellants contended the award was excessive and not commensurate with the injuries; the respondent supported the award as reasonable given inflation and the passage of time. Majanja J restated the principle that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with a trial court's discretion on damages unless the trial court acted on wrong principles or the award was a wholly erroneous estimate. The court found the authorities cited by the respondent involved far more serious injuries with permanent disabilities of 12% to 42%, making them unhelpful comparators, while the appellants' 1992 authority was outdated. Applying the comparable-injuries principle and accounting for inflation and current economic conditions, the court held the award excessive, allowed the appeal, set aside the Kshs. 1,400,000 award and substituted Kshs. 800,000 as general damages, subject to agreed contribution and interest from the date of the subordinate court's judgment. Notably, the court declined to award costs, observing the appeal would have been avoided had counsel cited appropriate cases.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the award of Kshs. 1,400,000 general damages was excessive

Holding

Yes - the award was on the higher side and excessive; substituted with Kshs. 800,000

Reasoning

The court compared the respondent's injuries (fractures of both femurs that healed without disability) with the authorities cited by the respondent, whose claimants suffered more serious injuries and permanent disabilities of 12%-42%. The cited cases were therefore unhelpful, and the award did not reflect comparable injuries.

p. 2
02

The proper approach to assessing general damages

Holding

Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards, adjusted for inflation and current economic conditions, avoiding astronomical awards

Reasoning

The court restated the principles from Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda, Mbaka Nguru v Rakwar, Kigaraari v Aya and Jabane v Olenja: awards must reflect recent comparable awards, fairly compensate within Kenyan conditions, and account for the current value of the shilling.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An appellate court should be slow to interfere with a trial court's award of damages unless the trial court acted on wrong principles or the award is so inordinately low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate
  • Comparable injuries should as far as possible be compensated by comparable awards, though no two cases are exact
  • Counsel must cite a range of cases reflective of the current trend of awards; failure to do so is a disservice to clients and the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed
  2. 2.Award of general damages by the subordinate court set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 800,000/- as general damages
  3. 3.The award shall be subject to agreed contribution and shall accrue interest from the date of judgment before the subordinate court
  4. 4.No order as to costs - costs declined
On appeal from
Subordinate court (magistrates' court)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court's award of general damages (statutory basis not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Not stated in the judgment (appellants v respondent, road accident damages appeal)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source:

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