[1999] KEHC 187 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff sustained both superficial and moderately deep burns while in the course of employment with the defendant. The medical evidence established that the most serious injuries were to the plaintiff's arms, while the facial and neck burns were superficial and expected to heal over time....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KEHC 187 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Kitheka Mulai; Defendant: Jina Ratina Contractors Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2941 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff for general damages, less workman's compensation already paid. No award for special damages or future surgical care. Costs awarded to the plaintiff from the date of judgment.
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Damages Assessment, Burn Injuries
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Kitheka Mulai
Plaintiff
Jina Ratina Contractors Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for injuries sustained during employment.
- 2 Whether the defendant is liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to special damages and future surgical care costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff sustained both superficial and moderately deep burns while in the course of employment with the defendant. The medical evidence established that the most serious injuries were to the plaintiff's arms, while the facial and neck burns were superficial and expected to heal over time. The court accepted that the plaintiff had already received workman's compensation, which must be deducted from any award. The court declined to award future surgical care costs, relying on the defendant's medical evidence that the scars would likely disappear. Special damages were denied for lack of proof. The court awarded general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff for general damages, less workman's compensation already paid. No award for special damages or future surgical care. Costs awarded to the plaintiff from the date of judgment.
Orders
- The plaintiff is awarded Ksh. 80,000/- as general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, after deducting Ksh. 36,800/- already paid as workman's compensation.
- No award is made for special damages or future surgical care.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL CASE 2941 OF 1996
JOHN KITHEKA MULAI …………………………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JINA RATINA CONTRACTORS LIMITED ………… DEFENADANT
JUDGMENT
The case before me is one of accident injury sustained whilst in employment. The palitnffi was employed by the defenant company as a carpenter.
On the 23. 3.97, eh was assigned duties of sanding a floor. This was at a reputable hotel in Nyeri. The work ahd not been doen well. The sanding had to be redone but his tiem with the polish alaredy on it. The plaintiff did this and his task was tonow ensure tht he saw dust was disposed off by burning it.
He took the saw dust form a bag in the machine and went outside where he threw t he saw dust. It immeaditely caught fire due to he polish init and bunt hsia rms and face.
He was rushed to hospital treated then released. Unfortunately that night his wounds became wrose and the injuries were then trated agin. The following day at the hospital. The palitnff was thena dmitted for about 16 days and tehreaft er continued as an out patient. By this tiem his employer was nolonger interested in him nor of his treatment. Ghe plaingiff was nto able to cope with his employment due to he discomfort. It seems as if eh is nolonger in employment as his employer was ntohappy tht he was coming to court to claim compensation.
He nonehtelss sued he defendants on the 14th of November, 1997 (plaint field on 12. 11. 97). The defeantns field defence to he plaint. When he case came up for hearing on he 11th fo may, 1999 the parties entered into a consent judgment as liability y whichw as agreed at eh ratio of 20% to the plaintiff and 80% to the defendant. Special damatges of Ksh.4,500/- was also agreed to by consent.
The parties brought it to mya ttentiona dn both agreed tht the palitnfif was paid workmans compensation of ksh.36,800/-. Tghsi figure is tobe taken into account on assessing the damates. The only issue left from the “agreed issues” field by the aprties is:- “Is [the plaintiff] entitled to damages as pleaded?” “Which party shall bear he costs ofthis suit?” The plaintiff gave evidence fo hwo his arms up to his elbows still feelichy ad uncomfortable after t he said burns. Dr. S.O. Owinga examined the palitnfif on behalf of t he defendants in June 1998. (t he plaitnfif claimed that this doctor actually did nto examined him but just made records and told him to go away). The doctor ahd the opportunity t o see the scars on the plaitnfif face and arms again in court.
In hsie vidence the doctor sat ed that the burns on the face was superficial. That this would clear. He alsos tated that the arms donto require plastic surgery.
In his medical repot he stat ed that the right upper limb had 4% moderately deep burns and left upper limb had 2% moderately deep burns.
Ther was superficial burns of the face and anterior neck. The medical report put in by consent by dR. Bhanji and prepared on the 22. 8.97 (The incident occurred on the 23. 3.97) confirmed the palitnfif sustiaend scaring patches on his arms due to the burns received. He would require future surgical care to remove the scaning of ksh.300,000/-/
The advcoat e for the palitnfif prayed an award of kdh.400,000/- byw ay fo General Damages be award. The advocate for the defenant stated the injuries were superficial.
I find that the palitnfif did sutaien injuries. I would agree with the medical evidence from the two doctors that the injuries on the face and neck were superficial. T eh injuries that were serious and deepw ere those onhte two upper lim or arms – up to the elbow. I find that the reasonable award to be gien to the palitnfif be Ksh.100,000/-. I would nto make any award for future serfical carea s the doctor for the defendant states the scars would disappear with time.
I hereby enter judgment for the palitnfif for pain suffering and loss fo amenties at ksh.100,000/-. (appointed to ksh. 80,000/-) less Workmans Compensation of 36,800/- ksh.43,200/-). I make no award for Special Damages as this has not been prove.d
I award he cost s of this suit from the date of this judgment.
Dated this 13th day of May 1999 at Nairobi.
M.A. Ang’awa
Judge