[2025] KEHC 8139 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8139 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court did not err in dismissing the application for review, as the issues raised by the appellant were not errors apparent on the face of the record but matters suitable for appeal. However, upon review of the evidence and the consent order, the High Court determined that certain special damages—specifically KES 20,000 for the medical report and KES 16,073 for medical expenses—were both pleaded and strictly proved, while the claim for KES 30,000 for doctor's court attendance was not supported by a receipt and thus failed. The appeal therefore partially succeeded to the extent of the special damages that were strictly proved, and the award was adjusted...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8139 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Rose Wanjiru Njoroge; Respondent: Doudglas Aol Onyango; Respondent: Fawzi Mohamed Said; Respondent: Joseph Mwangangi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E1159 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partially allowed.
Judges
TW Ouya
Legal Topics
Appeal Review, Special Damages, Consent Orders, Personal Injury, Evidence Admission
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Appeal Review Special Damages Consent Orders Personal Injury Evidence Admission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Wanjiru Njoroge

Appellant

Doudglas Aol Onyango

Respondent

Fawzi Mohamed Said

Respondent

Joseph Mwangangi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in failing to award special damages admitted by consent.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for review of its judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal on special damages is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court did not err in dismissing the application for review, as the issues raised by the appellant were not errors apparent on the face of the record but matters suitable for appeal. However, upon review of the evidence and the consent order, the High Court determined that certain special damages—specifically KES 20,000 for the medical report and KES 16,073 for medical expenses—were both pleaded and strictly proved, while the claim for KES 30,000 for doctor's court attendance was not supported by a receipt and thus failed. The appeal therefore partially succeeded to the extent of the special damages that were strictly proved, and the award was adjusted...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially allowed.

Orders

  • The award for special damages is set at KES 36,073, reflecting only those items strictly proved.
  • General damages of KES 700,000 and future medical expenses of KES 400,000 are upheld.