High Court 13243 of 2026

the injuries pleaded and the loss alleged and, in the alternative, attributed the occurrence of the accident to the respondent's own negligence, praying that the suit be dismissed with costs. 3. Upon hearing the parties, the subordinate court delivered judgment on 11th November 2025, finding the appellant wholly liable for the accident and awarding the respondent KES.300,000 as general damages together with special damages as proved, costs of the suit and interest. 4. Dissatisfied with the entire judgment, the appellant lodged a Memorandum of Appeal dated 17 th November 2025, which was subsequently incorporated in the Record of Appeal filed on 13th March 2026. The memorandum raises the following grounds of appeal— 1) That the learned trial court erred in law and fact by failing to consider the applicable law and the authorities cited by the appellant. 2) That the learned trial court erred in law and fact in awarding excessive general damages. 3) That the learned trial court erred in finding that the respondent had proved the injuries pleaded despite the alleged inconsistencies in the medical evidence.

page 2 of 9

4) That the learned trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence relating to quantum. 5) That the learned trial court failed to consider the appellant's submissions on the assessment of damages. 6) That the learned trial court failed to apply the relevant legal principles in assessing damages. 7) That the learned trial court erred in finding the appellant wholly liable. 8) That the learned trial court failed to properly analyse the evidence on liability. 9) That the learned trial court placed undue reliance on the respondent's evidence and submissions. 10) That the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and the law. 5. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. M/s KRK Advocates LLP filed the Appellant's Written Submissions dated 25th March 2026, while M/s T.O. Nyangosi & Co. Advocates filed the Respondent's Written Submissions dated 20th April 2026. It was contended that the respondent sustained soft tissue injuries only and that the award of KES.300,000 was excessive and warranted interference. The respondent opposed the appeal, maintaining that the treatment notes, the P3 Form and the medical report

page 3 of 9

consistently established the injuries sustained and that the award was fair, reasonable and commensurate with awards made in comparable cases. 6. Having considered the Record of Appeal, the grounds of appeal and the parties' submissions, the issues arising for determination are— 1) Whether there exists any legal basis for this Court to interfere with the award of general damages. 2) Whether the award of KES.300,000 was inordinately high in light of the injuries proved and comparable awards. 3) What orders should issue on the appeal and costs. 7. This being a first appeal, the Court is enjoined to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and draw its own independent conclusions while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. That duty was authoritatively stated in Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123. 8. Although the Memorandum of Appeal challenged both liability and quantum, the appellant expressly abandoned the grounds touching on liability during the hearing of the appeal through the written submissions. Consequently, the findings on liability are no longer in controversy and the appeal falls

page 4 of 9

for determination solely on the question whether the award of general damages should be disturbed. 9. The appellant submitted that the award of KES.300,000 was manifestly excessive and invited this Court to interfere with it. Reliance was placed on Kemfro Africa Limited t/a “Meru Express Services (1976)” & another v Lubia & another (No 2) [1985] KECA 137 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal held that an appellate court may interfere with an award of damages where the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant factor, or where the award is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage suffered. The appellant also relied on Mohamed Mahmoud Jabane v Highstone Butty Tongoi Olenja [1986] KECA 71 (KLR), in which the Court of Appeal emphasized that each case depends on its own facts, comparable injuries should, as far as possible, attract comparable awards, and inflation should be taken into account in assessing damages. Further reliance was placed on Peter Kanithi Kimunya v Aden Guyo Haro [2014] KEHC 1547 (KLR)and Kamunge v Gachari [2016] KEHC 5119 (KLR), whose reasoning is persuasive and consistent with the foregoing principles. 10. I have carefully re-evaluated the evidence contained in the Record of Appeal. The treatment notes, the P3 Form

page 5 of 9

dated 31st July 2023, and the medical report prepared by Dr. Nyameino on 30th September 2023 consistently demonstrate that the respondent sustained a neck contusion, chest contusion, back contusion, bruising of the right elbow region and a deep cut wound on the right knee. Those injuries were uniformly classified as soft tissue injuries. Significantly, the appellant did not tender any contrary medical evidence to challenge either the nature or the extent of those injuries. I therefore find no basis upon which to interfere with the trial court's finding regarding the injuries sustained. 11. The respondent submitted that the award of KES.300,000 was commensurate with the injuries proved and relied on Brian Kieya Mokua v Christopher Komen [2015] KEHC 2470 (KLR), where the court, drawing from West (H) & Son Ltd v Shepherd [1964] AC 326, Cecilia W. Mwangi & Another V Ruth W. Mwangi [1997] KECA 62 (KLR), Lim Poh Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority [1979] 1 All ER 332 , and Nancy Oseko v Board of Governors Maasai Girls High School [2011] eKLR, observed that damages should constitute fair and reasonable compensation, be assessed with moderation and, so far as practicable, ensure that comparable injuries attract comparable awards. I respectfully

page 6 of 9

agree with those principles, which remain the accepted guide in assessing general damages. 12. The respondent further relied on the persuasive decision in Maina v Kanyigi [2024] KEHC 3202 (KLR) where the court declined to interfere with the trial court's findings on the nature of the injuries, holding that an appellate court should not disturb findings founded on the treatment records and medical evidence without justifiable cause. 13. N.K The respondent also relied on the persuasive decisions in Brothers Limited & another v Okollo [2025] KEHC 439 (KLR), where the court reduced an award of KES. 500,000 to KES.350,000 for multiple soft tissue injuries, and Samwel Martin Njoroge Kamunyu v Mildred Okweya Barasa [2020] KEHC 4339 (KLR) in which an award of KES.450,000 was reduced to KES.300,000 for comparable soft tissue injuries. 14. I have also considered the appellant's contention that comparable awards ranged between KES. 70,000 and KES. 100,000 and the proposal that the award be reduced to KES.50,000. However, the appellant neither identified the injuries sustained in those authorities nor furnished a list or digest of the decisions relied upon to enable a meaningful comparison with the injuries proved in the present case. By

page 7 of 9

contrast, the respondent cited authorities whose facts and injuries were specifically set out and which provide a more reliable basis for assessing whether the impugned award was excessive. 15. Having independently evaluated the evidence and considered the rival submissions together with the authorities cited by the parties, I am not persuaded that the award of KES.300,000 was founded on a wrong principle or was so inordinately high as to warrant appellate interference. On the contrary, the award is supported by the uncontroverted medical evidence and accords with the range reflected in the comparable authorities relied upon by the respondent. The challenge to quantum therefore fails. 16. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, I find that the appeal lacks merit. The appellant has failed to establish any basis upon which this Court may interfere with the trial court's assessment of general damages. 17. Consequently, the Court makes the following orders— 1) The appeal is hereby dismissed. 2) The judgment and decree of the subordinate court delivered on 11th November 2025 in Keroka MCCC E236 of 2023 are hereby upheld. 3) The respondent shall have the costs of this appeal.

page 8 of 9

DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS July 2026 16th DAY OF WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant For Appellant - Hilda - Ms. Ongwacho for KRK Advocates For Respondent Co. Advocates - Mr. Karori for T.O.Nyangosi &

page 9 of 9