[2025] KEHC 9035 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9035 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court's award of general damages was within the range of comparable recent decisions and was not so excessive as to warrant appellate interference. The trial court properly considered the nature and extent of the respondent's injuries, as confirmed by both medical experts, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9035 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Export Consolidation Services Limited; Respondent: Peter Lopuonyang Keriso
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Voi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 February 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E027 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_partially_allowed
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Apportionment of Liability, Future Medical Expenses
Source Language
english
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Apportionment of Liability Future Medical Expenses

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Export Consolidation Services Limited

Appellant

Peter Lopuonyang Keriso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court's award of general damages and future medical expenses was excessive and based on wrong principles.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider the appellant's submissions and cited authorities on damages.
  3. 3 Whether the award for future medical expenses was justified by the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court's award of general damages was within the range of comparable recent decisions and was not so excessive as to warrant appellate interference. The trial court properly considered the nature and extent of the respondent's injuries, as confirmed by both medical experts, and the authorities cited were relevant and comparable. However, the award for future medical expenses was not justified by the evidence, as there was insufficient proof of ongoing need for medication beyond the immediate aftermath of the accident. The court therefore struck out the award for future medical expenses but upheld the rest of the damages, subject to the agreed...

Court Disposition

appeal_partially_allowed

Orders

  • The award for future medical expenses of Kshs. 18,000 is struck off.
  • Judgment is entered for the respondent against the appellant in the sum of Kshs. 901,624.75.