[2010] KEHC 3405 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 3405 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial magistrate had properly considered the injuries suffered by the respondent, the authorities cited by both parties, and exercised judicial discretion in arriving at the award of Kshs. 120,000/=. The court held that the appellant's proposed comparable cases were not applicable as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 3405 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kimatu Mbuvi; Respondent: Benson Nguli
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 27 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Appeals on Quantum, Road Traffic Accidents
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Appeals on Quantum Road Traffic Accidents

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

Parties

Kimatu Mbuvi

Appellant

Benson Nguli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the award of Kshs. 120,000/= in damages for soft tissue injuries was fair and reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court acted on wrong principles or made an excessive award warranting appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial magistrate had properly considered the injuries suffered by the respondent, the authorities cited by both parties, and exercised judicial discretion in arriving at the award of Kshs. 120,000/=. The court held that the appellant's proposed comparable cases were not applicable as the injuries in those cases were less severe, and the suggested award of Kshs. 80,000/= was unreasonably low. The court accepted that the most comparable case was Jacinta Akinyi, where the injuries were more severe and a higher award was made. There was no evidence that the trial court acted on wrong principles or that the award was so excessive as to warrant interference....

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.