Matoke v Oigo (Civil Appeal E066 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8731 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Judgment)

Matoke v Oigo (Civil Appeal E066 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8731 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8731 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisii Civil Appeal E066 of 2025 AM Okutoyi, J June 18, 2026 Between Grace Matoke Appellant and Lawrence Oigo Respondent (Being an appeal from the Judgement and decree delivered in the Chief Magistrate’s court in CMCC No. E254 of 2023 by Hon. S. N. Abuya delivered on 2nd of April 2025 in Kisii) Judgment Background of the appeal 1.This appeal emanates from a suit filed in the Chief Magistrate’s court at Ogembo regarding a road accident that occurred on 2nd February 2023 involving a motor vehicle registration number KBL 392 R controlled by the respondent’s driver and a motor cycle registration number KMGE 012 Z in which the respondent was a pillion passenger. As a result of the accident, the appellant claims to have sustained injuries. 2.At the trial court, the appellant relied on three witnesses; PW1, PC Moses Kasera who produced the police abstract that blamed the respondent’s driver for the accident; PW2 the appellant who articulated the accident and injuries and relied on a clinical appointment card, treatment notes, P3 form, medical report, receipts amounting to Kshs. 6,500/= and demand letter and bundle of receipts for Kshs. 8,560/=. PW3 Dr. Morebu Peter Christian who prepared the medical report guided by treatment notes from KTRH and PW4 Dr. Daniel Nyameino who indicated the appellant was referred from the Kisii police station and that from the treatment notes she suffered multiple soft tissue injuries. He produced the treatment notes as evidence. 3.The respondent on the other hand called in DW1 the driver of the respondent’s vehicle who narrated as to how the accident occurred and blamed the rider of the motor vehicle and thereafter closed his case. 4.The magistrate at the trial court delivered a judgement on 2nd of April 2025 attributing 100% liability in favour of the appellant and awarding general damages of Kshs 100,000/= and special damages of Kshs. 15,060/=. 5.Aggrieved with the decision of the Trial Magistrate court, the appellant filed this instant appeal on the following summarized grounds: That the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in giving an inordinately low quantum, misapplied the principles, failed to consider the appellant’s submissions, cited authorities for comparative awards and failing to consider passage of time and incidence of inflation. 6.The appellant therefore prayed for judgment of the trial court on quantum to be set aside, varied and or quashed and for the issue of assessment of quantum for general damages to be assessed/reviewed/varied to a reasonable amount commensurate to the evidence tendered as, well as costs of the appeal. Appellant’s submissions 7.The appellant supported her appeal with written submissions dated 25th February 2026 highlighting the error in awarding an inordinately low award despite injuries having been proved, failing to use the principles guiding quantum award and cited authorities to support an award of Kshs. 800,000/=. On the issue of costs, the appellant averred that a successful party is entitled to costs. Respondent’s submissions 8.The respondents in their written submissions dated 7th of April 2026, supported the trial court award of kshs. 100,000/= on the basis that damages ought to be pegged on the injuries proved and not necessarily what has been pleaded. Citing authorities, the respondent submitted that the appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court acted on wrong principles and that costs should be awarded to the successful party. Analysis and Determination 9.The role of this court as an appellate court is to independently evaluate, reconsider the evidence adduced before the trial court and come to its own determination while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. (See Selle & Another V. Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd (1968) EA 123, 126 paras H-I). 10.I have carefully analyzed the appeal and trial record in its entirety as well as the evidence adduced and submissions by both parties. There is no contention that an accident did occur on the 2nd of February 2023. The issue of liability has also not been contested in this appeal. 11.The main issue for the determination of this court therefore are as follows;a.The nature of injuries sustained by the respondent as a result of the accidentb.The quantum to be awardedThe nature of injuries sustained by the respondent as a result of the accident 12.In her testimony, the appellant claims that after the accident she was treated at Keumbo hospital and went home but the following day she felt bad prompting her to go to KTRH where she was x-rayed on the chest and given medicine then she went home. 13.The appellant pleaded the following injuries: Bruises on the right leg, physical and psychological pains, blunt trauma to the neck, blood loss, bruises on the right hand, chest contusion blunt trauma to the right wrist and blunt trauma to the lower limbs. 14.These injuries were corroborated by the appellant’s medical report by Dr. Momanyi as at the date of examination on the 10th March 2023 where upon examination on this day, close to a month after the accident, stated that the patient had multiple healing scar wounds and tenderness on the limbs, neck and chest. 15.The respondent’s medical report by Dr. Francis Odira dated 3rd of August 2023, 6 months after the accident, indicated that the appellant had healed soft tissue injuries. The report indicated the complainant complained of general body aches around the injured locations and was not able to undertake her livelihood due to the pains. 16.From the above reports, there is no contention as to the injuries sustained by the appellant of soft tissue injuries. The appellant also adduced evidence including the treatment notes, P3 forms and medical reports to prove the injuries sustained. Taking note of the evidence adduced and further noting that there has been no rebuttal on the injuries pleaded then on a balance of probability, the court finds that the appellant has proved the same. The quantum to be awarded 17.Having established that the nature of injuries as multiple soft tissue injuries with the lingering effects of pain, the question to determine is what is the fair and comparable award for general damages. 18.The appellant’s at both the trial court and appeal cited the following authorities of soft tissue injuries; Anthony Nyamweya v Dorcas Gesare where the courts awarded kshs. 600,000/= for soft tissue injuries on the neck and knees. 19.The respondent cited the following cases: Ndungú Dennis v Anne Wangari & another (2018) where multiple soft tissue injuries with brief loss of consciousness had a Kshs. 300,000/= award reduced to kshs 100,000/= and George Mugo & Anor v. AKM (2018) where the courts reduced an award of Kshs. 300,000/= to kshs. 90,000/=JW (Minor Suing through her Next Friend EWM) v Naekena Route 134 Coop & Credit Limited (Civil Appeal E185 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 9553 (KLR) where the plaintiff had suffered blunt injuries to the chest and bruises on the right upper hand, awarded Ksh. 100, 000/=. 20.The appellant at the appeal criticized the respondent’s authorities that had less severe injuries and that the court failed to consider the multiplicity of the injuries. 21.Firstly, this court notes that the majority of authorities cited by the respondent are quite old and hence may not be best to give a comparative award in line with the current times. 22.This court has done its own analysis of comparative awards for similar injuries of multiple soft tissue injuries and cites the following authorities: In the case of Mulwa & Another v. Nzai (2024) KEHC 6898 (KLR) the courts substituted the award of Kshs. 400,000/= for 250,000/= considering the salvage of inflation as additional factor. In the case of Poa Link Service Co. Ltd, & Another v. Sindano Boaz Bonzeno the courts upheld a general damage of kshs. 350,000/= for multiple soft tissue injuries. In the case of Omondi v. Anzofu (2024) KEHC 2675 (KLR) the courts set aside the award of Kshs. 1,000,000 to Kshs 300,000/=. 23.From the trial and appeal record, the appellant suffered multiple soft tissue injuries in several regions on the body that must have undoubtedly caused pain and discomfort. While each case depends on its own facts, consistency in awards remains an important consideration. 24.I am guided by the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with findings unless it is shown that the trial court acted on no evidence, misapprehended the evidence or applied the wrong principles. This has further been elaborated in Kiruga v Kiruga & Another (1988) KLR 348 where the courts stated that:“An appellate court cannot properly substitute its own factual findings for that of a trial court unless there is no evidence to support the findings or unless the trial court can be said to be plainly wrong”. 25.The award of Kshs. 100,000/= made by the trial court falls substantially below the prevailing range and does not adequately reflect the multiplicity of the injuries sustained. 26.Consequently, this court is persuaded that the award represented an erroneous estimate of damages and therefore warrants interreference. 27.Having reviewed the authorities cited as well as the courts own, and taking note of the multiplicity of injuries sustained by the appellant, status of recovery as at the time of re-examination six months after the accident, the passage of time, inflation and the need for consistency in personal injury awards, this court finds that an award of Kshs. 250,000/= would constitute fair compensation. Disposition 28.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds on quantum and I make the following orders;a.The appeal on quantum is hereby allowedb.The award of Kshs. 100,000/= for general damages is set aside and substituted with Kshs. 250,000/=. 29.Special damages shall remain as awarded by the trial court 30.The appellant shall have the costs of the appeal.It is so ordered. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2026A.M. OKUTOYIJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Maeche for the appellantMr. Omondi for the respondentRuth Mokeira-Court Assistant