[2004] KEHC 1042 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in both the assessment and classification of the appellant's injuries. The magistrate failed to consider the compression fracture of the 7th thoracic vertebra, a serious injury involving the spine, and instead classified all injuries as soft tissue injuries. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1042 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mary Adhiambo Ramogi; Respondent: Julius Birundu Mokaya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 31 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed. Lower court judgment and award set aside. General damages reassessed.
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages, Road Traffic Accidents
- 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
Mary Adhiambo Ramogi
Appellant
Julius Birundu Mokaya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding inordinately low general damages for the appellant's injuries.
- 2 Whether the magistrate failed to consider the severity of the appellant's injuries, specifically the compression fracture of the 7th thoracic vertebra.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate erred in both the assessment and classification of the appellant's injuries. The magistrate failed to consider the compression fracture of the 7th thoracic vertebra, a serious injury involving the spine, and instead classified all injuries as soft tissue injuries. The court held that this mischaracterization led to an inordinately low award of general damages, amounting to an error of principle. Upon review of the medical evidence and comparable case law, the High Court set aside the lower court's award and reassessed general damages at KES 200,000, reflecting the true severity of the appellant's injuries. The appellant was also awarded costs...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed. Lower court judgment and award set aside. General damages reassessed.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment and award of KES 80,000 by the lower court are set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2002
MARY ADHIAMBO RAMOGI ..…………………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
JULIUS BIRUNDU MOKAYA …………………………………….. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
The appellant had sued the respondent in Kisii Chief Magistrate’s court for general damages for pain and suffering from injuries she sustained in a road accident. She told the court that on 16th June 1998 she was a passenger in motor vehicle Reg. No.KAE 465Q a linear bus traveling from Rachuonyo to Nairobi. On the way it collided with m/v Reg. No. KAJ 175T owned by the respondent. It was being driven by his driver who passed away. She sustained several injuries.
Liability was agreed by consent at the ratio of 80% to 20% for the plaintiff. Hearing ended on 29th September 2000. Judgment was delivered on 28th February 2002 almost two years down the lane. The magistrate awarded the appellant shs.80,000/= as general damages.
It was submitted that the award of shs.80,000/= as general damages was so inordinately low as to occasion miscarriage of justice and the court was asked to set it aside and re-assess the damages. It was submitted that the appellant suffered serious injuries, which included a fracture of the 7th vertebra, which involves the spine. The magistrate did not take the fracture into account and said the injuries were classified as soft tissue injuries. Had she considered the fracture the award would have been higher.
Mr. Wesonga for the respondent opposed the appeal and supported the award. He submitted the magistrate was right in awarding the sum of shs.80,000/= general damages. He said the doctor’s report did not indicate the treatment given to the appellant. He further said when the doctor examined the appellant she was in fairly good general condition.
The trial magistrate’s judgment is at page 44 of record of appeal. It is a two paragraph half a page judgment and clearly falls far short of what would be termed a wellconsidered judgment. I concur with counsel for the appellant that the magistrate in the light of the injuries suffered awarded such low damages that an error of principle can be inferred. The estimate was erroneous. There was a doctor report produced. Also there was a P3 form and treatment notes. They show that appellant suffered a compression fracture of the 7th thoracic vertebra. The magistrate did not at any one-time mention the fracture. She said the injuries were classified as soft tissue injuries. These must have been the other injuries she sustained but even those were not just soft tissue injuries. The doctor classified them as severe soft tissues injuries. After that in the last paragraph of his report he analyzed the fracture which he termed as “severe injury involving the vertebra column ……” As submitted this involves the spine and I believe that is why the doctor concluded that appellant will be unable to carry any heavy objects on the head. Had the magistrate properly analyzed these injuries properly she would have found that they were serious and awarded a higher amount for damages. She erred and I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and the award of shs.80,000/=.
Having set aside the award the court will proceed to assess the damages. As I have said the injuries suffered were serious especially the fracture.These injuries were similar to those suffered by plaintiff in the case of PETER KIROBI – VS.- AG & ANOTHER HCCC 5602 of 1989 where shs.200,000/= was awarded. Though counsel for appellant urged court to award shs.400,000/= I do note that in his submission in the lower court he had submitted for shs.200,000/=. The injuries haven’t gotten worse since. I therefore award a sum of shs.200,000/= as general damages. Appellant will also have the costs in this court and in the lower court.
Dated 8th October 2004
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
8/10/04
Mr. Soire H/B for Mr. Ochillo for appellant.
Mr. Ogwen: I am for respondent. I pray for stay of execution for 30 days.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
Order: There be 30 days stay of execution.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE