[1987] KEHC 34 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the first defendant, who was driving the vehicle owned by the second defendant, making the latter vicariously liable. The court considered the medical evidence, the nature of the injuries (mainly bruising and a permanent scar), and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KEHC 34 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lucy Nyambura Wairiuko; Defendant: John Warui Wanyoike; Defendant: Anne W Mbugua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 386 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Assessment of General Damages After Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for special and general damages, interest, and costs.
- Judges
- JWA Butler-Sloss
- Legal Topics
- Personal Injury, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Motor Vehicle Accident
- 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
Lucy Nyambura Wairiuko
Plaintiff
John Warui Wanyoike
Defendant
Anne W Mbugua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Assessment of General Damages After Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first defendant was negligent in causing the accident resulting in the plaintiff's injuries.
- 2 Whether the second defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the first defendant.
- 3 What is the appropriate quantum of general and special damages for the plaintiff's injuries.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the first defendant, who was driving the vehicle owned by the second defendant, making the latter vicariously liable. The court considered the medical evidence, the nature of the injuries (mainly bruising and a permanent scar), and comparable awards in previous cases. The court found the sum proposed by the plaintiff's counsel excessive, given the relatively less severe injuries compared to cited precedents. The court assessed general damages at Kshs 70,000 for pain, suffering, and permanent scarring, and confirmed the earlier interlocutory judgment for special damages of Kshs 25,740. Interest was awarded on...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for special and general damages, interest, and costs.
Orders
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of Kshs 25,740 special damages with interest at court rates from 27th January, 1987 until payment.
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of Kshs 70,000 general damages with interest at court rates from 16th October, 1987 until payment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL CASE NO 386 OF 1987
LUCY NYAMBURA WAIRIUKO…………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHN WARUI WANYOIKE & ANNE W MBUGUA……DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
In this action, the plaintiff, Lucy Nyambura Wairiuko, claims special damages and general damages for personal injury, pain and suffering.
In paragraph 5 of her plaint, which was filed in court on 27th January, 1987, the plaintiff alleges that on 2nd March, 1986, at about 5. 30 am, she was traveling in a motor vehicle owned by Anne W Mbugua, wh9o is the second defendant to the suit. The vehicle was being driven by John Warui Wanyoike, who is the first defendant. The plaintiff alleges that, along the Gilgil-Nairobi road, the vehicle in which she was traveling went on to the wrong side of the road and collided with an oncoming vehicle. The plaintiff attributes the collision to negligence on the part of the first defendant. In paragraph 4, the plaintiff alleges that at all material times the first defendant was noting as the servant or agent of the second defendant, and, by implication, that the second defendant is to be held to be vicariously liable for the consequences of the negligence of the first defendant. Those consequences are set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint. The plaintiff suffered bruising of the dorsal spine, bruising of the left lower front chest, bruising of the right thigh, abrasion with bruising of the right leg, and bruising of the left leg.
The defendants failed to enter appearance. On 10th day of March, 1987, the Deputy Registrar entered interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of Kshs 27,237 being the amount of the special damages claimed in paragraph 7 of the plaint. The assessment of general damages comes before me. The plaintiff is represented by Mr Chawler; the defendants are not present, and are not represented. The plaintiff has given evidence, and has put in evidence as Exhibit 1, a report dated 15th April, 1986 and signed by Mr S C Patel, the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon – Mr Chawler has put in written submissions and authorities or previous decisions in other cases. From the sum awarded in those cases, and making allowance for the continuing fall in the value of money, Mr Chawler argues that Kshs 115,000 would reasonably compensate the plaintiff for her injuries.
The plaintiff survived this accident without losing consciousness and it may be assumed that her head was not injured. Moreover, the plaintiff suffered no bone injury such as a fracture of the leg or arm. The plaintiff was treated in the casualty department of Naivasha Hospital as an out patient suffering only from extensive bruising. When examined about a month after the accident, the plaintiff complained of pain and tenderness particularly in relation to her spine. Mr Patel did not find any permanent disablement but, under the heading Prognosis and Opinion, he said that dorsal backache and stiffness, contusion of the lung, and pain in the legs would continue for some time. Her lower right leg would remain permanently soared.
Of the five cases cited by Mr Chawler in his written submission, only two, numbered 3 and 4, are examples of damages running to six figure sums. In both cases, the injuries were, in my estimation, much worse than the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the present case. I am unable to accept the figure proposed by Mr Chawlar, and consider it to be excessive. I assess damages for a soar which is permanent and for bruising, pain and suffering which are tranient, in the sum of Kshs 70,000.
The plaintiff has already been awarded interlocutory judgment for special damages of Kshs 25,740 but I repeat that judgment here so that the entire judgment will be found in one place.
There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of Kshs 25,740 special damages together with interest thereon calculated at court rates from the date of filing the plaint herein, viz 27th January, 1987 until the same are paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
And there will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of Kshs 70,000 general damages for scarring, bruising, pain and suffering, together with interest thereon calculated at court rates from the date hereof viz the 16th October, 1987 until the same are paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
And it is ordered that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff the costs of this suit, such costs to be taxed if not agreed and to bear interest thereon calculated at court rates from the date of such taxation or agreement until the same are paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
October 16, 1987
Butler-Sloss
JUDGE