https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7802

Mwaniki v Kiiga (Being Sued as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pheneas Mucui Romano - Deceased) (Civil Appeal E125 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7802 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7802 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Civil Appeal E125 of 2024 KL Kandet, J June 5, 2026 Between Joyce Wairimu Mwaniki Appellant and Romano Kiiga (Being Sued as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pheneas Mucui Romano - Deceased) Respondent (Being an appeal from the Judgment of Hon. W Njuguna (Ms) RM, delivered on 27th June, 2024 in Kiambu CMCC NO. 395 of 2020) Judgment 1.This appeal is in respect of the Judgment delivered on 27th June, 2024 in Kiambu CMCC No 395 of 2020. The suit originated from the Plaint dated 7th September, 2020 and filed by Romano Kiiga (suing as the personal representative of the Estate of Pheneas Mucui Romano) being the plaintiff in the lower court (hereafter the Respondent) and against Joyce Wairimu Mwaniki (the Defendant) in the lower court and hereafter the Appellant). 2.In the suit, the Respondent sought for reliefs against the Defendant in the nature of general damages, special damages, costs and interest arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on or about 2nd Day, April, 2018 at Kahawa West, Kiambu County.It was alleged that the Defendant/Appellant was at all material times the registered owner of motor vehicle registration No. KCF 339T, Tata Lorry (hereafter the subject motor vehicle). It was further pleaded in the plaint that on the material date, the subject motor vehicle was so negligently, carelessly driven or controlled by the Defendant/Appellant or her driver/agent, that it knocked down and run over Mr. Pheneas Mucui Romano (Deceased) who was at a construction site, causing serious bodily injuries that led to his death. 3.The Appellant filed the statement of defence dated 22nd June, 2021 denying the averments made in the plaint in respect to negligence and liability on her part. 4.The suit proceeded to full hearing with the testimonies of both the Appellant and the Respondent. Upon close of submissions, the trial court delivered Judgment on 27th June, 2024 in which it apportioned liability in the ratio 80%:20% in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant and assessed damages as follows:i.Loss of dependency: Kshs.1,302,998/=ii.Loss of expectation of life: Kshs.100,000/=iii.Less 20% contribution: (Kshs.280,600/=)Total: Kshs.1,122,398/= 5.Aggrieved with the outcome, the Appellant preferred this appeal which is premised on the following grounds:a.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that the Appellant had shown a prima facie case with a high probability of success.b.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that there was no concrete evidence placed before the court to determine who was to blame for the accident between the Deceased and the Appellant.c.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that the contents of a Police Abstract as extracted from the records held by the police is merely evidence that a report of an accident was made and not that an accident occurred.d.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that a police abstract is not conclusive proof of liability.e.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that where there is no concrete evidence to determine how the accident occurred and who is to blame for causing an accident, both parties should be held equally liable.f.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in awarding an exorbitant amount under the limb of loss of dependency.g.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that in awarding damages for loss of dependency, the court should fall back to the Regulations and apply the minimum wage in the absence of proof of income.h.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to consider and find that the deceased was a turnboy and not a casual labourer in assessing damages for loss of dependency.i.That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in adopting a multiplier of 24 years where the deceased was 36 years old and failing to consider the various vicissitudes and uncertainties of life in arriving at a multiplier as it cannot be assumed that the deceased would have lived and worked till the retirement age of sixty (60) years.j.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to judiciously analyze the evidence on record thereby arriving at quantum that was erroneous, untenable, unfair and unjust to the Appellant. 6.The Appellant therefore seeks that the trial Court’s Judgment be set aside and the Appeal be allowed with costs and interest. 7.The Appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. In the Appellant’s submissions dated 30th April, 2026 the Appellant’s counsel condensed her grounds of appeal into three, namely, whether the Appellant is to blame for the accident; whether the Respondent is entitled to the damages awarded under the limb of general damages; and who shall bear the cost of this suit. 8.On the issue of liability, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial magistrate erred in apportioning liability at the ratio of 80%:20% against the Appellant despite there being no sufficient evidence establishing negligence on the part of the Appellant. Counsel argued that liability in road traffic accidents is determined on the basis of causation and blameworthiness and relied on Omoke v Owino & 3 Others (Civil Appeal E103 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 2652 (KLR) citing Michael Hubert Kloss & Another v David Seroney & 5 Others [2009] eKLR, where the court held that the determination of liability in road traffic cases is not a scientific affair but one guided by common sense based on the facts of each case. Reliance was also placed on Barker v Willoughby [1976] AC 467 and Jumaa Mwaura Kaphutsu v Pallet Logistics Limited [2020] eKLR on the principles of causation and blameworthiness. 9.The Appellant submitted that the Respondent failed to prove negligence against it on a balance of probabilities. It was contended that the Respondent relied principally on the testimony of PW1 and PW2, neither of whom witnessed the accident, and that their evidence regarding the occurrence of the accident amounted to hearsay contrary to Section 63 of the Evidence Act. In support of this submission, counsel cited Benjamin Mwenda Muketha (Suing as the Legal Representative of Mercy Nkirote) v Abdikadir Sheikh & 2 Others [2018] eKLR, where the court held that hearsay evidence regarding the occurrence of an accident is inadmissible and incapable of proving negligence. 10.The Appellant further submitted that the police abstract produced by PW2 was not conclusive proof of liability and merely confirmed that an accident had been reported to the police. Reliance was placed on ZAO & CAO (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of SAO (Deceased)) v Amollo Stephen [2019] eKLR, Kennedy Nyangoya v Bash Hauliers [2016] eKLR and Florence Mutheu Musembi & Geoffrey Mutunga Kimiti v Francis Karenge [2021] eKLR, where the courts held that a police abstract cannot by itself prove negligence unless supported by investigations and other corroborative evidence. Counsel pointed out that the police abstract in the instant case indicated that investigations were still pending and no blame had been attributed to any party. 11.It was further submitted that in the absence of concrete evidence showing who caused the accident, liability ought to have been apportioned equally between the parties. Counsel relied on Farah v Lento Agencies [2006] 1 KLR 123, where the Court of Appeal held that where there is no concrete evidence establishing fault between two drivers, liability should be apportioned equally. 12.On the burden of proof, counsel submitted that under Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, the burden lay upon the Respondent to prove negligence on a balance of probabilities. Reliance was placed on Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira [2016] eKLR for the proposition that the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff throughout the proceedings and negligence must be specifically proved. Counsel therefore urged the court to interfere with the trial court’s finding on liability and substitute the same with an apportionment of liability at 50%:50%. 13.On quantum, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the award of Kshs. 1,302,998/= for loss of dependency was manifestly excessive and based on erroneous principles. Further, the Appellant argued that the trial court erred in adopting a multiplier of 24 years without sufficient proof of the deceased’s earnings. It was submitted that the deceased was alleged to have been a casual labourer yet no documentary evidence of income was produced. Counsel urged the court to adopt the minimum wage applicable at the time, namely Kshs.8,366/=, and a multiplier of 15 years. Reliance was placed on County Government of Kitui & Another v Mutinda & Others (Civil Appeal E058 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 19406 (KLR) and Allan Owiti Awuor & Another v Tabitha Micere Mathu (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter Math Ng’ang’a) [2021] eKLR, where the courts held that in the absence of proof of earnings, courts ought to apply the minimum wage guidelines. 14.Counsel further cited Estate of the Late J.O.O v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited, HCCC No. 59 of 2009, where a multiplier of 12 years was adopted for a deceased aged 40 years, and submitted that a multiplier of 15 years would be reasonable in the circumstances. Counsel proposed an award of Kshs.501,960/= under the head of loss of dependency. 15.On costs, counsel submitted that costs follow the event pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and urged the court to allow the appeal with costs to the Appellant. 16.The Respondent’s Written Submissions are dated 8th May, 2026. The Respondent’s Counsel condensed the Submissions into two salient issues namely: whether the lower court erred in apportioning liability in the ratio of 80%:20% in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant and whether the lower court erred in its assessment of quantum of damages. 17.On the 1st issue on liability, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the learned trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence on record and rightly apportioned liability at 80%:20% against the Appellant. Counsel urged the court not to interfere with the findings of the trial court unless it was demonstrated that the court acted on wrong principles or that the apportionment was manifestly erroneous. 18.It was submitted that the Respondent had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities as required under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on Maria Ciabaitaru M’mairanyi & Others v Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited [2005] 1 EA 280 as cited in Mumbi M’Nabea v David M. Wachira [2016] eKLR and Palace Investments Limited v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR on the standard and burden of proof in civil cases. 19.It was further submitted that the Respondent adduced sufficient evidence at the hearing and produced a police abstract, while the Appellant failed to call any witness or adduce evidence in rebuttal. Counsel relied on Mursal & Another v Manese (Suing as the Legal Administrator of Dalphine Kanini Manesa) [2022] KEHC 282 (KLR), where the court held that where a defendant fails to adduce evidence, the plaintiff’s evidence remains uncontroverted. 20.·It is the Respondent’s case that although the police abstract was produced by an officer who was not the investigating officer, the same constituted credible evidence when considered alongside the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses, especially in the absence of rebuttal from the Appellant. Reliance was placed on Rono v Matasi & Another [2023] KEHC 24461 (KLR) where the court upheld findings on liability in circumstances where the defendant failed to tender evidence to controvert the plaintiff’s case. 21.The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant, being the driver of a heavy commercial vehicle reversing in a confined space with limited visibility, bore a higher degree of responsibility and duty of care. Reliance was placed on Isabella Wanjiru Karanja v Washington Malele, Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1981, where the court held that a driver in control of a lethal machine bears a greater duty of care toward other road users. 22.On quantum, Counsel submitted that the award made by the trial court was reasonable and based on proper principles. Reliance was placed on Butt v Khan Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1977 in support of this position. 23.Counsel submitted that the trial court correctly adopted the minimum wage applicable within Nairobi County pursuant to the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2018, which prescribed a monthly wage of Kshs.13,572.90. It was argued that the deceased worked within Kahawa West, Nairobi County, and therefore the minimum wage applied by the trial court was lawful and justified. 24.On the multiplier, Counsel submitted that the adoption of a multiplier of 24 years was reasonable considering the retirement age of 60 years and the age of the deceased at the time of death. Reliance was placed on Benedeta Wanjiku Kimani v Changwon Cheboi & Another [2013] KEHC 1103 (KLR), Joseph Wachira Maina & Another v Mohammed Hassan [2006] KEHC 2010 (KLR) and Nginyo & Another v Mengo & Another (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of David Mutiso Kathima (Deceased)) [2024] KEHC 11184 (KLR), where courts upheld multipliers based on expected working life up to retirement age. 25.In a nutshell, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error in principle on the part of the trial court either on liability or quantum and urged the court to dismiss the appeal with costs to the Respondent. 26.The court has considered the record of appeal, the pleadings and original record of the proceedings as well as the submissions by the respective parties. 27.This being a first Appeal, the first Appellate court’s duty was set out in the the Court of Appeal case in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. [1968] EA 123, as follows: -“this Court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect. In particular, this court is not bound necessarily to follow the trial judge’s findings of fact if it appears either that he has clearly failed on some point to take into account of particular circumstances or probabilities materially to estimate the evidence.” 28.Similarly, the above role was discussed in Mwanasokoni v Kenya Bus Service Ltd (1982-88)1KAR and Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others v Attorney General [2016] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that: -“This being a first appeal, it is trite law, that this Court is not bound necessarily to accept the findings of fact by the court below and that an appeal to this Court from atrial by the High Court is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this Court acts in such an appeal are well settled. Briefly put, they are that this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowances in this respect.” 29.Based on the above guidance and having perused the record, the submissions and the authorities referred thereto, two issues that arise for this Court’s determination are namely: a) whether the trial Court erred on the issue of liability and b) whether the assessment of damages was reasonable. To that end, this Court will re-examine the evidence and make its own findings on the same. 30.On the first issue, the Appellant on her part contends that the liability placed by the trial Court at 80%:20% in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant was not proper. She proposes a 50%:50% ratio between the parties for reasons that the Respondent had not proven negligence or discharged its burden of proof. Further, the Appellant contends that the evidence adduced by the Respondent before the trial court was not sufficient as it was based on hearsay and on police abstract which she submits was not conclusive on liability. 31.On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the trial court decision was sound in law and ought not to be disturbed as he had proven his case to the required standards. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant did not controvert the evidence produced in Court. 32.It is not in dispute that there occurred an accident involving the Appellant’s subject Motor vehicle registration number KCF 339T, Tata Lorry. It resulted in the death of Mr. Pheneas Mucui Romano (the deceased). Be that as it may, it is settled law that a Plaintiff must prove his case on a balance of probabilities, regardless of whether the Respondent adduces any evidence or not. 33.The trial Court apportioned liability at the ratio of 80%:20% in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent against the Defendant/Appellant. The court in the impugned judgment observed that the Police abstract report dated 30th August, 2018 in relation to the accident showed that investigations were still incomplete. Further, the Plaintiff who is the father to the deceased was not at the scene of the accident. PW2 was not the Investigation officer and had not been at the scene of the accident. 34.Having perused the trial court record, I note that the Police abstract dated 30th August, 2018 on page 24 of the Record of Appeal confirms the occurrence of the fatal accident. On the other hand, it does not apportion blame for the accident as investigations as indicated were yet to be completed. There were no eye witnesses called to testify in the matter before Court. 35.The Appellant, in her Statement of Defence dated 22nd June, 2021 and which is on page 29 of the Record of Appeal has made general denials on liability. I further note that the Appellant neither nor called any witnesses. The unexplained failure to call the driver of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident is a shortcoming in the Appellant’s case. 36.In Rosemary Wanjiru Kungu v Elijah Macharia Githinji & another [2014] eKLR as follows:“Therefore his evidence on how the accident took place could only be at best hearsay. Without any evidence to the contrary, this Court finds that the accident took place when the driver of the suit motor vehicle was reversing. He ought to have had a proper lookout before reversing and the fact that the accident took place without him noticing the plaintiff can only be explained on the ground of negligence. In Meru Packers Limited v. Hebert Liatema Omwaka Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2001, it was held that where a moving vehicle crashes against another which is stationary and in a parking bay it is the culprit of the accident. Similarly, where a vehicle crashes a pedestrian in a parking bay, in the absence of an explanation coming from the driver of that vehicle, it is my view that the driver ought to be held liable. It follows that the next issue - whether the plaintiff proved her case to the required standards – must similarly be answered in the affirmative.” 37.Similarly, in Autar Singh Bahra and Another v. Raju Govindji HCCC No. 548 of 1998 (UR) Mbaluto J, [as he then was], held thus: -“…. Although the Defendant has denied liability in an Amended Defence and Counter-claim, no witness was called to give evidence on his behalf. That means that not only does the Defence rendered by the 1st Plaintiff in support of the Plaintiff’s case stand unchallenged but also that the claims made by the Defendant in his Defence and Counter-claim are unsubstantiated. In the circumstances, the Counterclaim must fail.” This position was also echoed in Interchemie E.A Limited v Nakuru Veterinary Centre Limited [2001] KEHC 618 (KLR) and in Trust Bank Limited v Paramount Universal Bank Limited & 2Others [2009] KEHC 4030 (KLR), where the Courts held that “where no witness is called on behalf of a Defendant, the evidence tendered on behalf of the Plaintiff stands uncontroverted, reliable and wholly admissible.” 38.The circumstances of the case are that, the accident happened at a construction site where the deceased was allegedly knocked and run over by the subject motor vehicle belonging to the Appellant as it was being reversed. Although, it is quite unclear who exactly is to blame for the accident (due to incomplete investigations and lack of eye witnesses) it is trite law that a driver of a motor vehicle has a greater responsibility and a greater duty of care than a pedestrian. This Court thus finds that the apportionment of liability 80%:20% in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant Appellant was reasonable and legally sound. In Masembe v. Sugar Corporation and Another [2002] 2 EA 434, the Court held that: -“… When a man drives a motor vehicle along the road, he is bound to anticipate that there may be things and people or animals in the way and he is bound not to go faster that will permit his car at any time to avoid anything he sees after he has seen it. The driver should take reasonable steps to avoid hitting or colliding with the object. “ 39.Similarly, in Mary Njeri Murigi v. Peter Macharia and Another [2016] eKLR, the Court held that: -“... a person who is driving a vehicle is under a duty of care to other road users. The vehicle is a lethal weapon and due care is expected of the driver who is in control. “ 40.Consequently, I concur with the trial court’s finding that the Appellant failed to controvert the Respondent’s evidence with regard to the manner the accident occurred. I find that the Appellant’s, driver and/or agent, in the absence of contrary proof had a greater share of responsibility and therefore liability in causing the accident subject of the suit. Accordingly, this Court upholds the trial Court’s finding on liability at 80%:20% in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant. 41.On the issue of quantum, the bone of contention between the parties is on loss of dependency computed by the trial court to the tune of Kshs.1,302.998/=. Counsel for the Appellant contends that the award computed for loss of dependency was inordinately high and founded on wrong principles. Counsel further contended that the trial court equally erred in adopting a multiplier of 24 years instead of 15 years which would have been adequate in the event of insufficient proof of the deceased’s earnings. It was equally submitted that although the deceased was alleged to have been a casual labourer, no documentary evidence was tendered to prove his income and as such, the trial Court ought to have adopted the applicable minimum wage of Kshs.8,366/-. 42.The Respondent’s Counsel on his part submitted that the award made by the trial court on dependency was fair, reasonable, and founded on sound legal principles. Counsel further contended that the trial court properly applied the minimum wage applicable within Nairobi County where the Deceased worked under the applicable Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2018, which prescribed a monthly wage of Kshs.13,572.90/=. 43.The deceased died at the age of 36 years with no dependants except PW1(the father). The dependency ratio was set at 1/3. Further, the trial learned magistrate found that it was adequate to have a multiplier of 24 years in the circumstances. The trial court as stated hereinabove adopted the minimum wage of Kshs.13,572.90/= on the basis that the deceased was a casual labourer and there was no of proof of earnings. 44.This Court has been called upon to interfere with the award on damages. Courts are supposed to give reasonable awards which are neither extravagant nor oppressive, guided by previous awards for similar injuries and the principles developed by the Courts. However, what constitutes a reasonable award is an exercise of discretion and will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. An appellate Court must therefore be slow to interfere with such exercise of discretion. (See Butler v. Butler (1982) KLR 277.) 45.In the present case, the deceased was said to be a casual laborer. No documentary proof was adduced to prove his earnings. I concur with the trial Court’s finding that failure to produce documentary evidence of earnings is not fatal where the deceased was engaged in informal employment. See Jacob Ayiga Maruja & another v Simeon Obayo (supra). 46.In the circumstances where there is lack of sufficient proof of income or evidence of an employment contract, courts are entitled to resort to the applicable minimum wage guidelines for the time being in force. In Oyugi & Another -v- Fredrick Odhiambo Ongong & 3 Others [2014] eKLR the court stated that; “Where a person is employed and the salary is not determined, his or her income may be determined by reference to the government wage guidelines issued from time to time.” 47.I note that the deceased worked within Kahawa West, Nairobi County, as a turn boy. The trial court adopted a minimum wage of Kshs.13,572.90 pursuant to the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2018 as the multiplicand. 48.The Court in Kuria & another (Suing as the personal representatives of the Late Peter Mwangi Kuria) v Mwangi (Civil Appeal E357 of 2021) [2024] KEHC while addressing itself on the question of the multiplier explained thus:“The multiplier is about the length of time that the deceased would have continued working had he not died at the accident. What would be considered would be the actual age of the deceased, against the average mortality rate in the country and the age of retirement, for the sort of engagement the deceased was in. The so-called vagaries and vicissitudes of life are then brought to bear on these. The retirement age in Kenya is 60 years. The average mortality rate varies from time to time. The court works out the multiplier from a consideration of these factors. There is no scientific way of working out the multiplier, and the courts rely on past decisions as a guide.” 49.In the present case, the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of death. The trial court adopted a multiplier of 24 years based on the assumption that the deceased would have worked up to the retirement age of 60 years. I note however that the trial court did not take into account the vagaries, vicissitudes and uncertainties of life, in arriving at the multiplier of 24 years. Additionally, the trial court ought to have considered the nature of employment the deceased was engaged in and the likelihood of continued employment as a guide for judicious exercise of discretion. In the case of Board of Governors of Kangubiri Girls High School& Another v Jane Wanjiku Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2014 eKLR pronounced itself as follows:“The choice of a multiplier is a matter of the courts discretion which discretion has to be exercised judiciously with a reason” 50.Considering the circumstances of this case I am persuaded that the multiplier of 24 years was on the higher side. I find that a multiplier of 21 years would be reasonable. In the case. In Majani & another (Suing as the legal representatives/administrators of the estate of the Late Antony Liphede) v Godfrey (Civil Appeal E030 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 18048 (KLR), the court upheld the trial court’s finding on the multiplier of 24 years for a deceased who was 31 years. 51.Consequently, I find that the award under the head of loss of dependency must be varied to align with the court’s finding above. For loss of dependency, the figure thus works out as hereunder:13,572.90*21*12*1/3 =1,140,123.60/- Final Orders 52.Accordingly, this court finds that the appeal is partially successful and makes the following orders: -a.The finding of the trial court on liability at the ratio of 80%:20% in favour of the Respondent as against the Appellant is hereby upheld.b.The award under the head of loss of dependency of Kshs.1,302,998/= is hereby set aside and substituted thereof with an award of ksh.1,140,123.60/-c.The award on loss of expectation of life of ksh.100,000/- awarded by the trial court is hereby upheldd.Final Judgment is therefore entered for the Respondent against the Appellant as follows:Loss of dependency ksh.1,140,123.60/-Loss of expectation of life ksh.100,000/-Total ksh.1,240,123.60/-Less 20% contribution Ksh.248,024.72Net total ksh.992,098.88/-As the appeal has partially succeeded, I order that parties shall bear own costs of the appeal.e.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2026, THROUGH THE MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM.KENNEDY KANDETJUDGEIn The Presence Of:Nzuki For The AppellantMwenda For The RespondentCourt Assistant: Jael Nosim