https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10067

Limiri v Murungi (Civil Appeal E094 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10067 (KLR) (7 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10067 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Civil Appeal E094 of 2025 SM Githinji, J July 7, 2026 Between Nicholas Limiri Appellant and Linus Mutuma Murungi Respondent (Being an Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. S. Ndegwa (S.P.M) in Meru CMCC No. E141 of 2024 delivered on 11th of April, 2025) Judgment 1.This Appeal arises from the Judgment of the Learned Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. S. Ndegwa delivered on 11.4.2025 in Meru Civil Suit No. E141 of 2025 wherein Judgment was entered in the following terms;1.Liability by consent 80:20%.2.General Damages Kshs. 400,000.3.Special Damages Kshs. 42,640. 2.Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant set forth the following grounds in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 8th May, 2025;1.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact in awarding a sum of Kshs. 400,000/= for pain and suffering, which was manifestly excessive and inordinately high and not supported by the nature of the injuries sustained by the Respondent.2.The Learned trial Magistrate failed to consider and/ or disregarded recent judicial authorities and comparable awards relating to soft tissue injuries, which place the range of general damages between Kshs. 150,000/= and Kshs. 250,000/=.3.The Learned trial Magistrate misapprehended the medical evidence and made an award that does not reflect a fair and reasonable compensation in light of the soft tissue nature of the injuries, which had fully healed without complications or permanent disability.4.The award was so inordinately high as to amount to an erroneous estimate of the damage suffered and was based on wrong principles in the assessment of quantum.5.The Learned trial Magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for departing from recent binding or persuasive Judicial decisions on similar soft injuries.6.The Learned trial Magistrate erred in fact and law by failing to consider the Appellant's submissions on quantum hence arriving at an erroneous decision. 3.The parties entered a consent on liability at the ratio of 80:20, produced the documents without calling the makers, and closed their respective cases without calling any witnesses. Submissions on appeal 4.The Appellant, through the firm of Kiruki Kayika & Co. Advocates, filed undated submissions, citing Ken Odondi & 2 others v James Okoth Omburah T/A Okoth Omburah & Company Advocates (2013) eKLR and Easy Coach Ltd & Another v Elizabeth Musondi & Another [2015] eKLR), on when an appellate court can interfere with quantum of damages. Counsel contended that an award of Ksh. 250,000 would suffice, and cited John Kipkemboi & another v Morris Kedolo [2019] eKLR, Asad Motors Limited & 2 others v Yaa [2023] КЕНС 24279 (KLR) and Jelle v Kitsao (Civil Appeal E152 of 2023) [2025] КЕHC 3577 (KLR) (14 March 2025) (Judgment). 5.The Respondent, through the firm of Hiram Kirimi & Co. Advocates, filed submissions dated 28/10/2025, citing Butt v Khan [1977] eKLR, Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express Service & Another v Lubia & Another [1982–88] 1 KAR 727 and Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR. Counsel contended that the award for damages was not inordinately high and that the trial Court proceeded on the right principles in arriving at the figure of Kshs. 400,000, and cited Owuor & another v Jackline Nakangu Namugaka aka Jackline Nakangu [2024] KEHC 5605 (KLR), Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR, Joseph Mutua v Fredrick Moses High Court Civil Appeal No 122 of 2017, Lucy Ntibuka v Bernard Mutwiri & others [2007] eKLR, Peter M. Kariuki v Attorney General (2014) eKLR and Tayab v Kananu [1983] eKLR. Analysis and Determination 6.This being a first Appeal, the Court is obliged to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence adduced in the trial Court and to draw its own conclusions on the same. 7.In Selle & another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd [1968] EA, the Court held as follows: “This court is not bound necessarily to accept the findings of fact by the court below. An appeal to this Court is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this court acts in such an appeal are well settled. Briefly put they are that this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect.” 8.I have considered the appeal herein, the trial Court’s Judgment which is the subject of this appeal as well as the submissions by Counsel. 9.From the grounds of appeal, the twin issues for determination are whether the award of Kshs. 400,000 was inordinately high and whether the submissions on quantum were considered. 10.The principles to be considered by an appellate Court in deciding whether to disturb the trial Court’s assessment of damages were set out by the Court of Appeal for East Africa in the locus classicus case of Butt v Khan [1978] eKLR thus;“An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the Judge proceeded on wrong principles or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low.” 11.The injuries sustained by the Respondent are particularized at paragraph 7 of the plaint as extensive abrasion on the left forearm, multiple and extensive bruises, abrasions and lacerations on the anterior aspect of right leg and anterior aspects on the left leg, tender, swollen and bruised left ankle joint and bleeding gums with loose two upper left incisors. 12.At the time of examination by Dr. Wambugu P.M on 21/8/2024, the Respondent complained of occasional pains on the left leg, worse on exertion. The doctor opined that the Respondent sustained soft tissues injuries which were minor in nature, and assessed no permanent incapacitation. 13.In Asad Motors Limited & 2 others v Yaa [2023] KEHC 24279 (KLR), the court (K.W Kiarie J) substituted an award of Kshs. 250,000 with Kshs. 100,000 for a claimant who sustained deep cuts on the forehead and upper lip, blunt object injury to the right lower limb, loosening of the upper front tooth and bruises on the right leg. 14.Similarly, in Jelle v Kitsao [2025] KEHC 3577 (KLR), the court (M. Thande, J) upheld an award of Kshs. 250,000 for a claimant who sustained bruises and abrasions to the nose, scalp, left knee and right leg and loss of 2 upper teeth. 15.I find that the award of Kshs. 400,000 was manifestly excessive in the circumstances and constituted an error of principle. 16.I am thus satisfied that an award of Kshs. 250,000 would adequately compensate the Respondent for the pain he sustained. 17.The trial Court is faulted for failing to consider the Appellant’s submissions on quantum. That fault is misconceived because the trial court properly juxtaposed the Appellant’s submissions alongside the Respondent’s before reaching the decision it did. The mere fact that the trial Court was ultimately dissuaded by the Appellant's submissions, together with the authorities he cited, does not imply that they were disregarded altogether. 18.The upshot from the foregoing analysis is that the appeal is merited and hereby allowed to the extent set out herein below:1.The award of Kshs. 400,000 is hereby set aside and substituted with Kshs. 250,000.2.Each party to bear own costs of this appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.S.M. GITHINJI –JUDGE7/7/2026In the presence of:-Miss Nyaga for the Respondent.Miss Oteko for the Appellant.Miss Oteko – We pray for 30 days stay of execution.Miss Nyaga – We are not opposed to it.Court:-30 days stay of execution is granted.DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.S.M. GITHINJI –JUDGE