[2019] KEHC 276 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court's award of general damages for injuries necessitating skin grafting was reasonable, considering the comparable awards from 1993 and the effects of inflation over twenty-six years. The court also held that the special damages were properly assessed based on the documentary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 276 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: IMA Hauliers Limited; Respondent: Mary Mwinjisi Amwaya; Respondent: Blue Shuttle Co. Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 73 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Apportionment of Liability
- 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
IMA Hauliers Limited
Appellant
Mary Mwinjisi Amwaya
Respondent
Blue Shuttle Co. Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the award of general and special damages by the trial court was excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in the assessment of damages for injuries necessitating skin grafting.
- 3 Whether the special damages awarded were properly proved.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial court's award of general damages for injuries necessitating skin grafting was reasonable, considering the comparable awards from 1993 and the effects of inflation over twenty-six years. The court also held that the special damages were properly assessed based on the documentary evidence produced, including medical bills and receipts. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court's assessment of both general and special damages. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
- Any party aggrieved may appeal to the Court of Appeal within twenty-eight days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2017
IMA HAULIERS LIMITED.........................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
MARY MWINJISI AMWAYA...........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
BLUE SHUTTLE CO. LTD...............................................................2ND RESPONDENT
(An appeal arising from the judgment and decree of the Hon. M Shimenga,
Resident Magistrate (RM), in Butere PMCCC No. 277 of 2014 of 15th June 2017)
JUDGMENT
1. The suit at the trial court was initiated by the 1st respondent herein against the appellant for general and special damages for pain and suffering arising from a motor traffic accident involving a motor vehicle in which she was a passenger and another owned and controlled by the appellant. The appellant entered appearance and filed defence, essentially comprising of denials and an averment that the subject accident had been caused solely by the negligence of the 2nd respondent. Liability was resolved by consent of the parties. On damages, the court awarded Kshs.800,000. 00, general damages and special damages of Kshs.332,505. 00, subject to contribution.
2. The appellant was aggrieved by the award of damages and lodged this appeal, principally against the quantum, its principal grouse being that the amounts were excessive in the circumstances.
3. 0n the general damages, various medical documents were put in evidence. There are treatment notes and P3 form duly filled, which I need not give much attention. There is also a discharge summary and a medico-legal report. I shall pay attention to these two. The discharge summary is dated 8th April 2013, and is in the hand of Dr. John O. Hawala of St. Mary’s Hospital Mumias. It shows that the 1st respondent was admitted at the hospital on 19th October 2012 and was discharged on 8th April 2013. According to the summary, the 1st respondent had not sustained any fractures but had pyomyositis of the right thigh which necessitated skin grafting. The medicolegal report is dated 6th April 2013 and was prepared by Dr. Charles M. Andia, of Lubinu Medical Clinic. The injuries identified were blunt injury to the chest and bruise to the right thigh which later developed pyomyisitis, which led to skin grafting. It left the 1st respondent with scars on her thighs.
4. I have gone through the record of the trial court and noted that the parties did not place before the court authorities on injuries that necessitated skin grafting to guide the court in arriving at a fair decision. I have also looked at the submissions presented on appeal. The respondents have not placed any authorities before me. The appellant has placed dated authorities and some which are more recent. The more recent authorities are not relevant for they do not relate to injuries similar to those suffered by the 1st respondent. The older decisions of 1993 are more relevant, for they dwell on injuries that left the claimants with multiple and ugly scars similar to those suffered by the 1st respondent. The awards made in 1993 were in the region of Kshs.150,000. 00. I believe that after twenty-six years awards such as those imposed by the trial court cannot be unreasonable, taking into account the havoc inflation has inflicted on the Kenyan shilling over that period.
5. On medical expenses, the 1st respondent produced some documents. The total bill was put at Kshs.538, 905. 00. Out of that amount NSSF contributed Kshs.144,900. 00. The 1st respondent then paid Kshs.186,400. 00. The amount of the bill that was proved to have been paid was Kshs.331,500. 00. There was a balance still outstanding as at the time of trial. There was also money spent on the medicolegal report, a receipt of which was put in evidence. Again, I do not see any error on the part of the trial court in the assessment of the special damages.
6. Overall, I find that the appeal before me is not merited and I hereby dismiss the same with costs. Any party aggrieved by the orders made herein is at liberty to move the Court of Appeal appropriately, within twenty-eight (28) days.
DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE