[2018] KEHC 9488 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9488 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider relevant evidence that the respondent had been provided with protective gear, specifically gloves and overalls, and that the injury could have been mitigated had the respondent used the available safety equipment. The court held that this omission...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 9488 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kenya Steel Fabricators Limited; Respondent: Tom Moki
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 223 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Assessment of Damages, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Workplace Injury Assessment of Damages Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Steel Fabricators Limited

Appellant

Tom Moki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in awarding excessive damages for the injuries sustained by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider the appellant's evidence and submissions on liability and quantum.
  3. 3 Whether the apportionment of liability at 100% against the appellant was justified given the evidence of available protective gear.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider relevant evidence that the respondent had been provided with protective gear, specifically gloves and overalls, and that the injury could have been mitigated had the respondent used the available safety equipment. The court held that this omission warranted a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, apportioning liability at 90% to the appellant and 10% to the respondent. On the quantum of damages, the court determined that the injuries in the present case were less severe than those in some cited authorities and, after considering inflation and recent comparable awards, assessed general damages at...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The lower court's judgment is set aside.