[2018] KEHC 6614 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 6614 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred by relying solely on the respondent's cited authority, which was not reflective of the injuries sustained, and failed to consider the more comparable cases cited by the appellant. The court held that the respondent suffered soft tissue injuries, and the award of Kshs. 300,000 was inordinately high compared to similar cases. Taking into account the nature of the injuries and inflation, the court determined that Kshs. 90,000 was a reasonable award. The appeal was allowed, the previous award set aside, and substituted with Kshs. 90,000 as general damages, with interest from the date of judgment in the trial court. Costs of the appeal were...

Citation
[2018] KEHC 6614 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Godwin Ireri; Respondent: Franklin Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 May 2018
Case Number
Civil Appeal 47 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; award of damages reduced
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Soft Tissue Injuries
Source Language
English
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Soft Tissue Injuries

Case Brief

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godwin Ireri

Appellant

Franklin Gitonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in awarding Kshs. 300,000 as general damages for soft tissue injuries sustained by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the award was inordinately high and not supported by comparable authorities.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred by relying solely on the respondent's cited authority, which was not reflective of the injuries sustained, and failed to consider the more comparable cases cited by the appellant. The court held that the respondent suffered soft tissue injuries, and the award of Kshs. 300,000 was inordinately high compared to similar cases. Taking into account the nature of the injuries and inflation, the court determined that Kshs. 90,000 was a reasonable award. The appeal was allowed, the previous award set aside, and substituted with Kshs. 90,000 as general damages, with interest from the date of judgment in the trial court. Costs of the appeal were...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; award of damages reduced

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The award of Kshs. 300,000 as general damages is set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 90,000.