Nyakundi v Abere (Civil Appeal E004 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6699 (KLR) (16 April 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6699 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYAMIRA CIVIL APPEAL E004 OF 2025 TW CHERERE, J APRIL 16, 2026 BETWEEN JUSTUS NYASANI NYAKUNDI ........................................................... APPELLANT AND CAROL KEMUNTO ABERE .............................................................. RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree in Nyamira MCCC 2 of 2022 by Hon. B. Okong’o (RM) on 23rdDecember 2024) JUDGMENT 1. On 04th July 2020, the Respondent was involved in a road traffic accident while travelling as a passenger in motor vehicle registration number KBB 215W along the Kericho–Kisii road when the Appellant, either by himself or through his driver, servant and/or agent, negligently drove motor vehicle registration number KBB 583D causing a collision, as a result of which she sustained bodily injuries namely contusions to the chest, abdomen and shoulder, a cut wound to the ankle joint and other soft tissue injuries. 2. Following the said accident and injuries, the Respondent commenced suit by way of a Plaint dated 11th May 2021 seeking general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, special damages, costs and interest. 3. The Appellant filed a Statement of Defence dated 21st September 2021 in which he denied the occurrence of the accident as pleaded, denied negligence, and denied that the Respondent sustained the injuries alleged. In the alternative, the Appellant pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent for failure to take precautions for her own safety and failure to observe safety regulations while travelling. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6699/eng@2026-04-16 1
page 1 of 3
4. The Respondent’s injuries were confirmed to be soft tissue injuries with no permanent disability by the P3 Form dated 04th July 2020 and two medical reports dated 11th February 2021. 5. Upon considering the evidence, the learned trial magistrate delivered judgment on 23rd December 2024 and awarded the Respondent KES. 250,000 as general damages and KES. 5,550 as special damages together with costs and interest. 6. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant lodged this appeal mainly on the ground that the award of general damages in the sum of KES. 250,000 was excessive in the circumstances. 7. The appeal was argued by way of submission supported by authorities which I have considered together with the record of appeal and identified the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the trial court applied the correct principles in assessing general damages. 2. Whether the award of KES. 250,000 was excessive in the circumstances. 3. What orders should this Court make. 8. In Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123, it was held that a first appellate court is obligated to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence and draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses. This principle justifies this Court’s reanalysis of the entire record. 9. On the principles governing interference with quantum, in Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a “Meru Express Services (1976) & another v Lubia & another [1983] KECA 61 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that interference is warranted where the trial court acted on wrong principles or the award is inordinately high or low. In Butt v Khan [1978] KECA 24 (KLR) it was emphasized that an appellate court should only interfere where the award represents an erroneous estimate. These principles guide the present determination. 10. The Respondent sustained contusions to the chest, abdomen and right shoulder, a cut wound to the ankle joint and abrasions on left leg. In Lucy Wambui Ndungu v Transpares Kenya Ltd & Another [2015] eKLR, the claimant sustained chest and shoulder injuries and the award of KES. 250,000 was upheld, but those comparable injuries.In James Mbaka Nguru & Another v David Kiplagat Sang [2019] eKLR, the court awarded KES. 300,000 for multiple blunt injuries, but the injuries in that case were more extensive and justified a higher award than the present soft tissue injuries. 11. In Mwanzia v Ngalali Mutua & Kenya Bus Services (Msa) Ltd [2004] eKLR, the court awarded KES. 200,000 for soft tissue injuries. In Wilson Mboga Ondicho v Harison Nyangau Mosigisi (2024) eKLR, the award of KES. 80,000 was made for soft tissue injuries, and the injuries in that case are closely comparable to the present case where recovery was complete. In Obure & Another v Okwanyo [2024] KEHC 13333, the court reduced an award to KES. 70,000 for soft tissue injuries, and similarly, the injuries in that case involved no permanent incapacity, making it comparable to the present case. In The Guardian Coach Ltd v Paul Ogolla [2026] KEHC 2825 (KLR) this court reduced general damages from KES. 300,000 to KES. 60,000 after finding that only chest tenderness was proved. 12. These authorities demonstrate a range of awards for soft tissue injuries and underscore that each case must turn on its own facts. While there is a discernible trend towards moderation where injuries are not severe, comparable authorities also show that higher awards may be sustained depending on the extent and combination of injuries sustained. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6699/eng@2026-04-16 2
page 2 of 3
13. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to ensure that the Court does not apply authorities mechanically but instead aligns the present injuries with the most comparable precedents. 14. Upon evaluating the authorities cited by both parties, this Court finds that the injuries sustained by the Respondent, though classified as soft tissue injuries, involved multiple regions of the body, including the chest, abdomen, shoulder, ankle joint and leg, and were therefore not insignificant. 15. The trial court, in awarding KES. 250,000 as general damages, took into account the nature and multiplicity of the injuries and exercised its discretion within the acceptable range demonstrated by comparable authorities. 16. This Court is not persuaded that the trial court acted on wrong principles, nor that the award is so inordinately high as to warrant interference. Consequently, there is no basis for disturbing the award on quantum. 17. In the result, the final orders of the Court are as follows: 1. The appeal on quantum is dismissed. 2. The award of KES. 250,000 as general damages is upheld. 3. The award of KES. 5,550 as special damages is upheld. 4. The Respondent shall have the costs of the appeal. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Hilda For Appellant - Ms. Moraa for KRK Advocates LLP For Respondent – Ms. Nyakundi for R.K.Mwenda & Associates Advocates https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6699/eng@2026-04-16 3
page 3 of 3