[2017] KEHC 8212 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's evidence regarding his employment and the circumstances of his injury was unchallenged, as the appellant did not call any evidence in rebuttal. The trial magistrate was correct in holding the appellant liable for the respondent's injuries sustained in the course of employment....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8212 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Landmark Holding Limited; Respondent: Martin Mutinda Kamula
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 194 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, 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
Landmark Holding Limited
Appellant
Martin Mutinda Kamula
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was an employee of the appellant at the material time.
- 2 Whether the appellant was liable for the injuries sustained by the respondent during employment.
- 3 Whether the award of general damages was excessive given the nature of injuries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's evidence regarding his employment and the circumstances of his injury was unchallenged, as the appellant did not call any evidence in rebuttal. The trial magistrate was correct in holding the appellant liable for the respondent's injuries sustained in the course of employment. Regarding quantum, the appellate court held that the award of Kshs. 60,000 in general damages was not inordinately high or low and was based on proper principles. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2010
LANDMARK HOLDING LIMITED ……………. APPELLANT
VERSUS
MARTIN MUTINDA KAMULA ………………..RESPONDENT
Being an appeal against the judgment of Honourable W. Mokaya P.M. delivered on 13th May, 2010 at Milimani commercial Courts)
JUDGMENT
This appeal follows a decision by the lower court in which the respondent sued the appellant for injuries sustained while in the cause of employment. The appellant had denied the claim but after the trial the lower court found in favour of the respondent by holding that the appellant was liable to 100% and awarded Kshs. 60,000/= general damages plus Kshs. 1,500/= special damages.
The appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment and lodged this appeal. The grounds of appeal in summary were that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in holding that, the respondent was an employee of the appellant and that the appellant was liable to him.
The trial magistrate was also faulted for her interpretation of the evidence of the respondent who was the sole witness in his case. The award of Kshs. 60,000/= general damages was also said to be manifestly excessive in view of the injuries sustained by the respondent.
I have reviewed the lower court record with a view to arriving at independent conclusions. Both learned counsel for the appellant and respondent have filed submissions and cited some authorities. Only the respondent testified in support of his case while the appellant did not call any evidence in defence.
The respondent testified that he was employed by the appellant as a casual worker and on the day he was injured, he was operating a concrete machine which he said was defective. In the process of doing so, he was injured and the particulars of his injuries were set out in the report prepared by Doctor Cyprianus Okoth Okere and produced in evidence.
According to the said report the respondent suffered laceration injury to his right little finger, right middle finger, right index finger and right ring finger. He was managed as an outpatient at Mlolongo health care services where the wounds were cleaned and dressed. He was given analgesics, antibiotics and tetanus toxoids.
At the time of examination he had healed from the injuries without any disability anticipated. His evidence, in the absence of any rejoinder from the appellant, remained uncontroverted. The learned trial magistrate was therefore correct in holding the appellant liable to to the respondent.
I have looked at the authorities cited relating to quantum and with respect, the learned trial magistrate cannot be faulted because the award was neither inordinately high nor low to give a wrong impression of the estimate, and the court did not act on wrong principles. I find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18th Day of January, 2017.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE