[2025] KEHC 8963 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8963 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in assessing general damages for soft tissue injuries sustained by the respondent. The award of Kshs. 300,000 for pain and suffering and Kshs. 3,550 for special damages was reasonable and consistent with comparable precedents, particularly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8963 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Fredrick Mwenda Nduruhu; Appellant: Samuel Mwangi Njoroge; Respondent: Esther Njeri Waweru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Voi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E017 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Road Traffic Accidents, Soft Tissue Injuries, Appellate Review of Damages
Source Language
en
Tort Law Assessment of Damages Road Traffic Accidents Soft Tissue Injuries Appellate Review of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick Mwenda Nduruhu

Appellant

Samuel Mwangi Njoroge

Appellant

Esther Njeri Waweru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial court applied the correct principles in assessing damages for the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the award of general damages for pain and suffering was excessive in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in assessing general damages for soft tissue injuries sustained by the respondent. The award of Kshs. 300,000 for pain and suffering and Kshs. 3,550 for special damages was reasonable and consistent with comparable precedents, particularly Catherine Wanjiru Kingori & 3 Others v Gibson Theuri Gichubi (2005) eKLR. The appellate court reiterated that it would only interfere with the trial court's assessment if it was inordinately high or low or based on wrong principles, which was not the case here. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.