Climax Coaches Limited v Geoffrey Misaro Kangethe

4. Upon evaluating the evidence, the trial court in a judgment delivered on 07th October 2025 entered in favour of the Respondent awarded general damages in the sum of KES. 400,000 and special damages of KES. 97,560 together with costs and interest. 5. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellant filed the present appeal contending that the learned trial magistrate misdirected himself in law and fact, failed to properly evaluate the evidence and the applicable legal principles, and arrived at an award of general damages that was manifestly excessive. 6. This being a first appeal, this Court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at its own independent conclusions, while bearing in mind that it did not have the advantage of seeing or hearing the witnesses testify. This duty is well settled in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA 123 and Abok James Odera t/a A.J. Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira [2013] eKLR. The Court must therefore subject the entire record to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and draw its own conclusions, while giving due allowance to the findings of the trial court. 7. The appeal turns only on the issue of quantum, and specifically whether the award of KES. 400,000 as general damages was inordinately high in the circumstances of the case. 8. Upon consideration of the entire medical evidence, and in particular the initial treatment notes dated 05th February 2022, which constitute the primary and contemporaneous record, it is evident that the Respondent’s injuries were confined to a soft tissue injury of the right shoulder. Those notes, having been made at first presentation, carry the greatest probative value and properly anchor any subsequent medical opinion. While the report by Dr. Morebu Peter Momanyi alludes to additional injuries, the same are not reflected in the initial treatment records and must therefore be treated with circumspection. This conclusion is further reinforced by the later report of Dr. Jenipher Kahuthu which confirms that the Respondent had sustained a soft tissue injury to the right shoulder and that, upon re-examination, he had fully healed with no complaints, no residual findings, and no permanent disability. 9. In the premises, the Court is satisfied that the Respondent sustained a minor soft tissue injury to the right shoulder only, from which he made a complete recovery. 10. The principles governing appellate interference with an award of damages are settled. In Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a “Meru Express Services (1976) & another v Lubia & another [1983] KECA 61 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that an appellate court will only interfere where the trial court took into account irrelevant factors, failed to consider relevant ones, or where the award is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. 11. In assessing comparable awards, this Court is guided by persuasive High Court decisions. 12. In Francis Ochieng & another v Alice Kajimba [2015] eKLR cited by the Respondent at the trial, the respondent in that case had pleaded and testified to multiple injuries including head trauma, soft tissue injuries, and alleged loss of seven teeth; however, on appeal the High Court, upon re-evaluating the contemporaneous medical records, found that the initial treatment documents did not record any dental loss and concluded that the alleged loss of teeth was not attributable to the accident, thereby characterising the injuries as multiple soft tissue injuries with head injury but no fractures; applying the settled principles on appellate interference with quantum, the Court held that the trial magistrate had misapprehended the extent of the injuries and awarded excessive damages, and accordingly reduced the general damages from KES. 500,000 to KES. 350,000 (subject to contribution). In that case, therefore, even after discounting the exaggerated component of injury, the Court was still dealing with multiple soft tissue injuries accompanied by head injury, a combination plainly more serious than the present case. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6643/eng@2026-04-23 2

page 2 of 3

13. At the trial, the Appellant cited Ondicho v Mosigisi (Civil Appeal E054 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 5140 (KLR) where an award of KES. 300,000 for soft tissue injuries was reduced to KES. 80,000. Appellant similarly cited Obure and Bethuel Githonga Muthami v Samuel Kiyuka Timothy Okwanyo [2024] KEHC 13333 (KLR) where an award of KES. 250,000 was reduced to KES. 70,000 for soft tissue injuries. These authorities demonstrate that soft tissue injuries, particularly where confined to a single anatomical region and without residual disability, attract relatively modest awards. When juxtaposed with Francis Ochieng & another v Alice Kajimba it becomes evident that higher awards are sustained only where there are multiple injuries or aggravating features such as head trauma, which are absent here. 14. In light of the finding that the Respondent’s injury was limited to a soft tissue injury of the right shoulder with full recovery, the award of KES. 400,000 was manifestly excessive and not supported by comparable jurisprudence. The learned trial magistrate appears to have been influenced by the broader injuries contained in the later medical report, without reconciling the same with the primary treatment notes, a misdirection akin to that identified in Francis Ochieng & another v Alice Kajimba (supra). However, unlike that case where multiple injuries including head trauma justified a higher residual award, the present case involves a single, localized soft tissue injury with no residual disability, thereby placing it within the lower range demonstrated in Ondicho v Mosigisi (supra) and Obure and Bethuel Githonga Muthami v Samuel Kiyuka Timothy Okwanyo (supra). Doing the best I can in the circumstances, and taking into account comparable awards and inflationary trends, an award of KES. 100,000 is fair and reasonable compensation and properly reflects the nature and extent of the injury sustained. 15. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 1. The award of general damages in the sum of KES. 400,000 is hereby set aside and substituted with an award of KES. 100,000. 2. The award of special damages in the sum of KES. 97,560 having been specifically pleaded and strictly proved, is hereby upheld. 3. Appellant is awarded the costs of the appeal, while the Respondent shall retain the costs awarded in the lower court. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2026 WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Hilda For Appellant - Ms. Ongwacho for KRK Advocates LLP For Respondent – Mr. Magara for Ombuhi K.Mogire & Co.Advocates https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6643/eng@2026-04-23 3

page 3 of 3