Guardian Coach Limited v Dennis Otieno Tabu

4. At the close of the hearing, the parties filed written submissions. The Respondent proposed an award of KES 300,000 as general damages for pain and suffering, while the Appellant proposed an award of KES 70,000 contending that the Respondent sustained soft tissue injuries only. 5. By a judgment delivered on 01st July 2025, the trial court found the Appellant wholly liable and awarded the Respondent general damages of KES. 300,000 and special damages of KES. 7,450, together with costs and interest. 6. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant lodged the present appeal by a Memorandum of Appeal dated 09th July 2025, challenging both liability and quantum. At the hearing, the Appellant abandoned the challenge on liability, leaving only the issue of the quantum of general damages for determination. 7. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant filed its written submissions dated 07th January 2026, while the Respondent filed his written submissions dated 15th January 2026. The Appellant contended that the award of KES. 300,000 was manifestly excessive given that the Respondent sustained soft tissue injuries only. It was submitted that the learned trial magistrate erred by adopting the Respondent’s proposed figure without sufficient reference to comparable awards. 8. The Respondent opposed the appeal, submitting that the award was reasonable in the circumstances. 9. On a first appeal, this Court is enjoined to conduct its own independent review of the evidence on record and to arrive at its own conclusions, while giving due regard to the fact that the trial court had the opportunity to hear and see the witnesses. This approach is firmly grounded in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA 123.) Issues for Determination 10. Having considered the trial court record and the parties’ submissions, the issues arising for determination are: 1. Whether the award of general damages was excessive 2. Whether the award of special damages was proved 3. Who should bear the costs of the appeal Analysis and Determination 1. Whether the award of general damages was excessive 11. The injuries sustained by the Respondent are set out in the Medical Report dated 05th February 2020. They were confined to soft tissue injuries, with no fractures and no permanent incapacity. 12. The principles governing appellate interference with awards of damages are well settled. In Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express Services & Another v A.M. Lubia & Another (1982–88) 1 KAR 727 and Mohamed Mahmoud Jabane v Highstone Butty Tongoi Ole Moijoi (1982–88) 1 KAR 98, the Court of Appeal held that an appellate court may interfere where an award is so inordinately high or low as to represent an erroneous estimate. 13. The principle that similar injuries ought to attract comparable awards, as articulated in Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR remains applicable. The decision in Mohamud v Mwinyi & Another [2024] KEHC is particularly relevant, as it concerned soft tissue injuries with no permanent incapacity. In that matter, an award of KES. 300,000 was found to be excessive and was reduced to KES. 80,000. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2827/eng@2026-02-05 2

page 2 of 3

14. The injuries established in the present appeal are of a similar character and severity. 15. The authorities relied upon by the Respondent are distinguishable. In Ndede & Another v Nyarindo [2024] KEHC 5782 (KLR), the claimant sustained more extensive injuries involving head contusion and persistent symptoms. Comparable distinguishing features arise in Baloch Faisal & Another v Elloy Kawira Nthiri [2019] eKLR and Kenyatta University v Karumba Nyuthe [2014] eKLR, where multiple injuries and prolonged pain justified higher awards. 16. I have also considered the submissions made before the trial court. The Respondent proposed an award of KES. 300,000, while the Appellant proposed KES. 70,000. The judgment of the trial court does not disclose a comparative evaluation of authorities dealing with analogous injuries. By adopting the Respondent’s proposed figure without articulating how it aligned with prevailing awards for soft tissue injuries, the trial court failed to adequately justify the quantum assessed. 17. In light of the close factual similarity between the present case and Mohamud v Mwinyi & Another (supra), and guided by the principles set out in Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express Services & Another v A.M. Lubia & Another (supra), and Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda (supra), I am satisfied that the award of KES. 300,000 was inordinately high and amounted to an erroneous estimate. 18. Having regard to inflation and the passage of time since Mohamud v Mwinyi & Another (supra) was decided, I find that an award of KES. 150,000 constitutes fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained. Special Damages 19. The Respondent specifically pleaded special damages and proved the same through receipts produced at the trial. The award of Kshs. 7,450 was therefore properly made and is upheld. Costs 20. The appeal has succeeded on the issue of quantum. In the circumstances, the Respondent shall bear its own costs of the appeal. Disposition 21. From the foregoing analysis, I make the following orders: 1. The award of general damages of KES. 300,000 is set aside and substituted with an award of KES. 150,000. 2. The award of special damages of KES. 7,450 is upheld 3. Respondent shall bear the costs of the appeal. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Hilda For Appellant - Ms. Ongwacho for KRK Advocates LLP For Respondent - Mr. Mokaya for Sonye J.Ondari & Co. Advocates https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2827/eng@2026-02-05 3

page 3 of 3