[2003] KEHC 795 (KLR)
The court found that the award of Kshs 90,000 in general damages was justified based on the evidence of the respondent's injuries, which included a deep laceration, uncosmetic scarring, pain likely to worsen with age, and a prognosis of early osteoarthritis. The trial magistrate properly considered the seriousness...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 795 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Daystar University; Respondent: Joshua Ndavi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 205 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Assessment of Damages, General 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
Daystar University
Appellant
Joshua Ndavi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the award of Kshs 90,000 in general damages to the respondent was inordinately high in the circumstances of the case.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate misdirected himself on law or fact in awarding the damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the award of Kshs 90,000 in general damages was justified based on the evidence of the respondent's injuries, which included a deep laceration, uncosmetic scarring, pain likely to worsen with age, and a prognosis of early osteoarthritis. The trial magistrate properly considered the seriousness of the injuries, the effects on the respondent's life, the prevailing rate of inflation, and the time elapsed since the comparator case. There was no misdirection on law or fact, and the award was not excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 205 OF 1999
DAYSTAR UNIVERSITY ……………………………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOSHUA NDAVI ……………………………………. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
In this appeal the main issue is the award and that is what Mr. Muriithi for the Appellant and Miss Kilonzo for the Respondent told me during the hearing. According the Appellant, the award of Kshs 90,000/= general damages is inordinately high. The ward, in the circumstances of this case, should have been between Kshs 45,000/= and Kshs 50,000/=.
According to the Respondent, the award of Kshs 90,000/= in this case was proper.
I have read the evidence and the judgment of the learned senior Resident Magistrate in light of the submissions before me. Mr. Muriithi, counsel for the Appellant does not think the injury the Appellant suffered warranted the award the court gave. According to him the injuries in the authority cited,
{Margaret Njeri Njau
Vs.
{Mohamed and Mohamed And Another H.C.C.C. No 5497 of 1990, was a more serious case than the instant case.
Margaret Njeri Njau suffered blunt trauma to the left thigh, multiple bruises in left forearm, bruises on left leg and blunt trauma to the left ankle joint. General damages were assessed at Kshs 50,000/=.
The Respondent in the instant case suffered a deep laceration measuring 5 by 5 cm and this is what Dr. A.O. Wandugu said as his opinion and prognosis on 23rd April 1998.
[“The scar has a rather uncosmetic] appearance.
[The pains in the leg are bound to worsen with age. The one on (L) hip will definitely lead to early osteoa-thritis with its debilitating side effects.
[With sexual function already worsened with the] pain the (L) hip, this is bound to worsen further’’.
That is clearly more serious than the injuries in Margaret Njeri Njau’s case which, though to various parts of the body, were just bruises with no serious effects.
The learned Senior Resident Magistrate considered all that and also considered the rate of inflation then prevailing and the number of years that had passed since the award in the case of Margaret Njeri Njau in 1992. The judgment appealed from in this appeal is dated 14th March 1999. I find no misdirection, whether on law and/or on fact, in the award of general damages by the learned magistrate. The award is not excessive. On the contrary, it is justified on the evidence before the learned Magistrate.
From what I have been told in this appeal, I take it that ground number one in the memorandum of appeal is abandoned so that only ground number two remained. Otherwise I find that there was evidence for the trial Magistrate to hold that the Respondent was injured while in the course of employment with the Defendant.
From what I have been saying, therefore, this appeal fails. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated this 23rd Day of May 2003.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE
Present:
Mr. Muriithi for the Appellant.