[2000] KEHC 350 (KLR)
The court found the defendant 100% liable for the accident, as liability was not disputed. However, the court was not convinced that the plaintiff developed epilepsy as a result of the accident due to insufficient and non-specialist medical evidence. The court held that only the soft tissue injuries were proved....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 350 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mbari Nganga Veronica; Defendant: Stanley Wambugu Macharia & Another
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1625 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff. Liability at 100% against the defendant. General damages of Ksh.120,000 and special damages of Ksh.1,200 awarded.
- Legal Topics
- Personal Injury, Motor Vehicle Accident, Quantum of Damages, Special Damages, Liability, Medical Evidence
- 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
Mbari Nganga Veronica
Plaintiff
Stanley Wambugu Macharia & Another
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle accident.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff developed epilepsy as a result of the accident and is entitled to damages for the same.
- 3 What is the appropriate quantum of general and special damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the defendant 100% liable for the accident, as liability was not disputed. However, the court was not convinced that the plaintiff developed epilepsy as a result of the accident due to insufficient and non-specialist medical evidence. The court held that only the soft tissue injuries were proved. Special damages for medical costs were rejected due to lack of proper pleading and proof, except for the medical legal fee, which was accepted. The court awarded general damages for pain and suffering based on comparable case law for soft tissue injuries, and special damages limited to the proved medical legal fee. The court emphasized the need for specialist medical evidence in...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff. Liability at 100% against the defendant. General damages of Ksh.120,000 and special damages of Ksh.1,200 awarded.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant at 100% liability.
- General damages for pain and suffering awarded at Ksh.120,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 1625 OF 98
MBARI NGANGA VERONICA .................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STANLEY WAMBUGU MACHARIA & ANO.............. DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
Veronica Mbari recalls well the 27. 11. 97. She was a passenger in a Nissan vehicle. The said vehicle stopped for petrol at Nakuru. Veronica was travelling to go on the way to Nairobi.
She recalls the vehicle over speeding. The vehicle had an accident. Veronica was admitted to Kenyatta National Hospital. She was unable to recall anything until four days later.
She sustained injuries to herself. Her complaints are injuries to the back, left, arm. She now claims she has convulsions attributed to the said accident.
During the proceedings her advocate amended the plaint to include a further cause of injury namely epilepsy. He also included further medical costs amounting to Ksh.35,000/-.
The plaintiff had as a witness Dr. P.M. Kariuki. He gave evidence to describe the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. He was not a consultant nor was he a neurologist specialist. He relied on notes from Kenyatta hospital of consultants there. He then gave a report stating that a part from the soft tissue injuries, she the plaintiff has developed epilepsy. This was a result of the head injuries.
The plaintiff had spoken of attending the association for epilepsy. I do not seem to see any report from that said as such or doctor from there to confirm the allegation of epilepsy
. This issue of epilepsy was taken up by the advocate for the defendant. He stated if the report on the medical side would indicate the plaintiff had epilepsy as far back as 8. 4.98 why was the plaint not amended then? I too would ask the same question?
I would find that the plaintiff was involved in an accident. I believe this aspect was not disputed. I would enter liability against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff at 100%.
I would also state that the Main aspect on quantum is on General Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The advocate for the plaintiff requested I award Ksh.850,000/-. the advocate for the defendant prayed that an award of Ksh.120,000/- be awarded. He relied on a case law for soft tissue injuries with chance of epileptic.
John Cheborgei Chuma vs Joseph Onserio Hcc. 195/94 I would hold that the plaintiff did suffer soft tissue injuries on her left shoulder pelvis and lower back. she also sustained a cut on her forehead.
I am nonetheless not convinced that the plaintiff has epilepsy as a result of the injury to her head. I find that the other aspect that was brought out in the trial was that the plaintiff has other ailments prior to this. One of these included high blood pressure.
It is not quite certain whether the epilepsy was there before or after the accident. This is difficult to know as the doctor in question is not a consultant nor a neurologist.
I have stated in other judgement that accident victims should be taken to doctor who are close as possible specialize in the injuries sustained. It would assist the court tremendously. The doctors should also be consultants.
Further the plaintiff’s witness PW2 produced no X-ray of the head or stated and that he saw one or not. I hold that this aspect of injury cannot stand. I will therefore find that the case of:- G. Ngambi & another Vs Kamau Ndegwa & another Hccc No.236/93 is not applicable. I find that the injuries sustained are the blunt soft tissue injuries.
As to the medication said to amount to Ksh.35,000/- the Special Damages must be pleaded and particularised. This was not and all the bills for medicine was put in a lumpsum.
There is no proof of the receipts that the same was for the prescribed ailment or other ailment.
As to the bills from Kenyatta National Hospital these are invoices. There must be a receipt NOT INVOICE to confirm payment. As such I reject the claim of Ksh.35,000/- as not being proof of medication for injuries sustained which are further not told what type of drugs was required with the epileptic association. As to the other aspect of Special Damages namely the fee of Ksh.1,200/- as medical legal fee, I would accept this bill as having been proved and paid.
I have perused the authority of Kibet Chelagat a minor suing thro’ his next friend Samuel Chelagat v Plan International Institute whereby the possibility of post traumatic epilepsy is said to may occur.
The advocate for the plaintiff stated that in case it has already occurred.
As stated earlier that I am not convinced from the evidence before me of this medical ailment by the plaintiff has been proved.
I nonetheless enter judgement for the plaintiff.
In summary:
1. Facts
Female adult aged 60 years
passenger involved in a car accident. 2. Liability.
Judgement be and is hereby entered on liability at 100% against the defendant jointly and severally. 3. Quantum
a) General Damages
Judgement be and is hereby entered for damages on pain suffering at Ksh.120,000/-.
b) Special Damages - medical report- Ksh. 1,200/- Total Ksh.121,200/-
I ward costs to the plaintiff. I award interest on Special
Damages from the date of filing suit. Interest on General damages from the date of this judgement.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2000 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDG E