[2016] KEHC 2111 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate properly addressed all relevant factors in assessing general damages for the respondent's injuries. The magistrate considered the nature and extent of the injuries, the prognosis, permanent incapacity, inflation, and the prevailing cost of living. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2111 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Amos Njagi Emurasi; Appellant: Maina Hiram; Respondent: Alex Muriithu Njogu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 94 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Assessment of Damages, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages
- 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
Amos Njagi Emurasi
Appellant
Maina Hiram
Appellant
Alex Muriithu Njogu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the award of KShs 500,000 as general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court applied the correct principles in assessing quantum of damages for the respondent's injuries.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate properly addressed all relevant factors in assessing general damages for the respondent's injuries. The magistrate considered the nature and extent of the injuries, the prognosis, permanent incapacity, inflation, and the prevailing cost of living. The court held that the award was not manifestly excessive and that there was no error of principle or misdirection by the trial court. The appellate court emphasized that it is not enough to substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the award is shown to be manifestly excessive or based on a wrong principle, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CIVIL APPEAL NO 94 OF 2013
(FORMERLY NYERI HCCA NO 12 OF 2012)
(Appeal against Quantum only from the Decree passed on 23/01/2012 in Murang’a CMCC No 373 of 2010 – A K Kaniaru, SPM)
1. AMOS NJAGI EMURASI
2. MAINA HIRAM…………………………..………………APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ALEX MURIITHU NJOGU……..…………………………… RESPONDENT
J U D G M E NT
1. This appeal is against quantum only in respect of general damages awarded by the lower court for pain, suffering and loss of amenities on account of personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Judgment on liability was entered by consent. The lower court awarded general damages of KShs 500,000/00. The Appellants argue that award was too high and manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
2. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. I have read the submissions of both sides. I have also perused the record of the trial court.
3. It is trite that an appellate court will interfere with an award of damages only if, on the facts of the case, the award is manifestly low or excessive and not a proper representation of the loss suffered. An appellate court will also interfere with an award if it is based on wrong principle, or if, in arriving at it, the trial court considered a matter that it should not have, or failed to consider a matter it should have.
4. The award challenged in this appeal was made on 23/01/2012. The Respondent’s injuries, as set out in 3 medical reports, were –
(i) Fracture of the left femur.
(ii) Dislocation of the right knee joint.
The trial court noted that the prognosis was good and that the Respondent had a permanent incapacity of 8% of the total person.
5. The Respondent suggested to the trial court an award of KShs 800,000/00 as general damages. The court thought that sum was too high. The Appellants on the other hand had suggested an award of KShs 200,000/00 which the trial court thought was on the lower side. In support of their position they used authorities that were more than ten years old. They have used the same authorities in this court. I have perused them and others.
6. I have carefully read through the judgment of the trial court. The learned trial magistrate properly addressed his mind to all relevant factors when considering what award to make. He did not consider any factor he should not have; nor did he fail to consider anything he should have. He took into account inflation and the prevailing cost of living. He committed no error of principle.
7. It is not enough that that I would probably have made a slightly lower award had I been the trial magistrate. I do not find the award manifestly excessive as submitted by the Appellants.
8. In the event there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016