[1992] KEHC 120 (KLR)
The court found the defendants liable for the fatal accident that caused the death of the plaintiff's husband. In assessing damages, the court accepted documentary evidence from the deceased's employer regarding his salary and prospects, finding no valid reason to doubt their authenticity. The court applied the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] KEHC 120 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bakari; Defendant: Hassan
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 233 of 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Fatal Accidents, Dependency Claims, Damages Assessment, Loss of Expectation of Life
- 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
Bakari
Plaintiff
Hassan
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants are liable for the death of the plaintiff's husband arising from the road traffic accident.
- 2 How to assess the quantum of damages for lost dependency and loss of expectation of life under the Law Reform Act and Fatal Accidents Act.
- 3 Whether the special damages claimed are proved and payable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the defendants liable for the fatal accident that caused the death of the plaintiff's husband. In assessing damages, the court accepted documentary evidence from the deceased's employer regarding his salary and prospects, finding no valid reason to doubt their authenticity. The court applied the traditional two-thirds fraction of the deceased's income for dependency, rejecting the suggestion to use a lower fraction. The court calculated lost dependency for the years 1988 to 1992 based on actual earnings and projected future loss using a multiplier of 12 years at the last known salary. The court also awarded damages for loss of expectation of life under the Law Reform Act...
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiff for Kshs.414,892 with costs and interest against the defendants jointly and severally.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Bakari v Hassan
High Court, at Mombasa
April 9, 1992
Wambilyanga J
Civil Case No. 233 of 1989
April 9, 1992, Wambilyanga Jdelivered the following Judgment.
This is an action which arises out of a road traffic accident which occurred on 26th April 1988 at 7. 30 a.m. when the plaintiff’s husband was fatally struck and knocked by the 1st defendant’s vehicle which at all material times was being driven by the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff’s husband who was 35 years at the time succumbed to those injuries. This claim is both under the Law Reform Act and under the Fatal Accident Act. There are altogether 14 minor children.
With regard to the plaintiff’s husband there are 2 documents emating from his former employer to the effect that at the time of his death his salary was Shs.1,907/= per month. He had been recruited into the organisation (i.e. Coffee Marketing Board Uganda) as a sweeper. But his diligence and discipline had enable him to rise to the post of a store keeper in April 1987; and that is the post he was holding at the time he met with his death.A second letter from the same organisation computes the salary he would be earning if he was alive. It is worked out at Kshs.2,562/= per month. In his written submission Mr. Kiambo wonders why there was no payslip in regard to the salary earned before death. I find the 2 letters attached to Mr. Pandya’s written submission to be authentic and cogent and I have no valid reason for doubting them.
The plaintiff must have been a mere housewife who attended to the needs of their 13 minor children whom the husband left behind. Mr. Pandya argues that most of the husband’s salary must have gone towards the maintenance of the huge family. That is possibly true. But the husband would quite likely have spent some money on himself, his friends or his other extended family members. So that I have no sufficient basis for holding that he would spend 7/8 and not the traditionally accepted fraction of 2/3 on his family.I opt for the latter fraction. Otherwise the other points raised by Mr. Pandya in his submission are sound and can not be validly objected to.
In my view the lost dependency during the year 1988 to 1992 is as follows:-
1988 at 2/3 of Shs.1,907/= for 8 months
works out to Shs.10,168/=
In 1989 at 2/3 of Shs.2,018/= per month
For 12 months works out to Kshs.15,680/=
In 1990 at 2/3 of Shs.2,249/= per month
Works out to Shs.15,782/= for 12 months to
Be Shs.18,000/=
In 1991 at 2/3 of 2,562/= works out to Shs.1,708/=
Per month for 12 months to be Shs.20,496/=
In 1992 at 2/3 of 2,562/= per month for 12 months works out to Shs.20,496/=.
It is reasonable that I give a multiplier of 12 years to (2/3 of Shs.2,562/=) per month. The result is Shs.245,952/=. In the end the lost dependency is Shs.350,792/=. It is true as submitted by Mr. Pandya that there is no dispute on Shs.5,100/= claimed as special damages. The plaintiff is also entitled to Shs.60,000/= for loss of expectation of life under Law Reform Act as claimed in the plaint.
Accordingly judgment is entered for the plaintiff for Shs.414,892/= with costs and interest against the defendants jointly and severally.