[2021] KEHC 2776 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 2776 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court's award of Kshs.400,000 in general damages for the injuries suffered by the respondent's son was not inordinately high. The court compared the injuries in this case to those in the cited authorities, noting that the injuries here were more serious than those in the most...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 2776 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Beatrice Wangui Waititu; Respondent: DGK (suing as father and next friend of GMG (Minor))
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 96 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Road Traffic Accidents
Source Language
en
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Road Traffic Accidents

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beatrice Wangui Waititu

Appellant

DGK (suing as father and next friend of GMG (Minor))

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial court's award of Kshs.400,000 in general damages for personal injuries was inordinately high or justified.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court considered relevant and comparable authorities in assessing damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court's award of Kshs.400,000 in general damages for the injuries suffered by the respondent's son was not inordinately high. The court compared the injuries in this case to those in the cited authorities, noting that the injuries here were more serious than those in the most recent comparable case (Robert Cheserek v. Jackline Jepkoech Jimmy, 2019), and that the other authorities were decided several years earlier. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion, considered relevant factors, and applied the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards. As such, there was no basis for appellate interference,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.