[2015] KEHC 8053 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 8053 (KLR)

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate did not err in awarding KShs. 800,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, as the award was consistent with comparable cases and the injuries suffered. The award for loss of earnings was upheld because the evidence showed the respondent's net earnings...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 8053 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Motrex Co. Ltd; Appellant: Benjamin Kiphupa Kimengei; Respondent: Fidelis Njoki Gachoka
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 205 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partially allowed.
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages, Loss of Earnings, Loss of Earning Capacity
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Assessment of Damages Personal Injury Quantum of Damages Loss of Earnings Loss of Earning Capacity

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motrex Co. Ltd

Appellant

Benjamin Kiphupa Kimengei

Appellant

Fidelis Njoki Gachoka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the award of KShs. 800,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities was excessive.
  2. 2 Whether the award of KShs. 900,000 for loss of earnings failed to account for statutory deductions and was therefore excessive.
  3. 3 Whether the award for loss of earning capacity was justified given the respondent's medical recovery.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate did not err in awarding KShs. 800,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, as the award was consistent with comparable cases and the injuries suffered. The award for loss of earnings was upheld because the evidence showed the respondent's net earnings included service charge, and statutory deductions were properly considered. However, the award for loss of earning capacity was set aside because the respondent had fully healed, was capable of resuming similar employment, and did not prove on a balance of probabilities that her future earning capacity was diminished by the injuries. The appeal thus partially succeeded, with the award...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially allowed.

Orders

  • The award for loss of earning capacity is set aside.
  • All other awards (pain, suffering and loss of amenities; loss of earnings; special damages) are upheld.