[2016] KEHC 1505 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 1505 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court's award of KShs 500,000 in general damages, less 30% contribution, was not manifestly excessive or an erroneous estimate given the injuries suffered by the respondent. The appellate court emphasized that its role is not to substitute its own assessment unless the award is clearly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 1505 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Henry Mbogo Gitau; Respondent: Edwin Irungu Mukera
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 179 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
en
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Quantum of Damages

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Mbogo Gitau

Appellant

Edwin Irungu Mukera

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial court's award of general damages was excessive and not commensurate with the injuries sustained by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court ignored relevant medical reports and submissions in assessing damages.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of residual disability was properly considered in the award of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court's award of KShs 500,000 in general damages, less 30% contribution, was not manifestly excessive or an erroneous estimate given the injuries suffered by the respondent. The appellate court emphasized that its role is not to substitute its own assessment unless the award is clearly excessive or inadequate. The injuries sustained by the respondent, including deep cut wounds, lacerations, loss of teeth, and other oral injuries, justified the amount awarded. The court also noted the passage of time since the comparable case cited by the appellant, which warranted a higher award. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.