[2018] KEHC 1356 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate had the opportunity to hear the witness, analyze the evidence, and consider the authorities cited. The trial magistrate distinguished the injuries in the present case from those in the authorities relied upon by the parties and provided reasons for the quantum awarded....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 1356 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kisima Farm Ltd; Respondent: Zachary Munamu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 23 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Assessment of Damages, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages
- 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
Kisima Farm Ltd
Appellant
Zachary Munamu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the award of general damages by the trial magistrate was manifestly excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in assessing damages and disregarding the appellant's submissions and authorities.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate had the opportunity to hear the witness, analyze the evidence, and consider the authorities cited. The trial magistrate distinguished the injuries in the present case from those in the authorities relied upon by the parties and provided reasons for the quantum awarded. Since liability had been settled by consent and the trial magistrate's assessment of damages was not shown to be manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles, there was no justification for appellate interference. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the trial court's award was upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- DR to issue notice that judgment delivered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2017
KISIMA FARM LTD............................................................APPEALLANT
VS
ZACHARY MUNAMU........................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Kisima Farm Ltd prepared appeal herein on the ground the award made in favour of the Respondent in Meru CMCC No. 332 of 2014 in judgment delivered on 24th February 2017 was manifestly excessive. In the circumstances and did not reflect the demand of awards for injuries sustained by the Respondent.
The other ground was that the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in facts and law in making manifestly high in view of the inquires pleaded and the evidence adduced in proof thereof as to amount to erroneous estimate of damages and loss suffered by the Respondent.
It was alleged that the trial magistrate erred in disregarding the defendant’s submission and authorities cited on quantum and thus led to a manifestly high award of general damages to Respondent.
The appellant sought that the appeal be allowed.
The Respondent said that they were harvesting wheat using combined harvester and he climbed to make the wheat level, the driver of the combine harvester started the engine before he could climb down, he was injured toes and the little toe was affected.
When matter came up for defence hearing on 17th Dec 2012 Counsel for parties recorded consent on liability on the ratio of 90:10 in favour of the Respondent.
The defendant/appellants didn’t therefore call any witness.
I have gone through the proceedings which where only the Respondent testified. The trial magistrate analysed both the Respondents list of authorities. For instance at page 16 reference to the authority of Terry Kanyaa Marangu in which the trial magistrate found the injuries were much more serious than those of the Respondent and could not therefore be held upon an award of damage in instant case.
At paragraph 11 the trial magistrate said “as regards the suggested award injuries in the Ogatu were rather minor compared to the present case”.
This court in consideration of the fact that the trial magistrate had an opportunity to listen to the witness who testified and the fact that evidence entered is analysed and a conclusion make out of the said analysis, I do find that it would not be proper to interfere with the findings of the trial magistrate where consent on liability was recorded by the parties herein.
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE
JUDGMENT SIGNED, DELIVERED AND DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018.
In the presence:
C/A:- Kinoti
N/A for Appellant
N/A for Respondent
Ms Kiome Advocate for Respndent – N/A
Order
DR to issue Notice that judgement delivered.
HON. A.ONG’INJO
JUDGE