[2024] KEHC 8862 (KLR)
The High Court held that the multiplicand of KES 35,000 per month was not open to challenge on appeal as it was a figure agreed upon by consent of the parties before the Trial Court, and there was no basis to interfere with such consent. On the multiplier, the court found that the Trial Court's use of 17 years was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 8862 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Integrated YMR Partnership; Appellant: Henry Olando Xavier; Respondent: Eunice Njuguna; Respondent: Samuel Kiarie
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E161 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AB Mwamuye
- Legal Topics
- Loss of Dependency, Assessment of Damages, Multiplicand and Multiplier, Consent Orders
- 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
Integrated YMR Partnership
Appellant
Henry Olando Xavier
Appellant
Eunice Njuguna
Respondent
Samuel Kiarie
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Trial Court erred in adopting a multiplicand of KES 35,000 per month for loss of dependency.
- 2 Whether the Trial Court erred in applying a multiplier of 17 years for the deceased aged 43 years.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the multiplicand of KES 35,000 per month was not open to challenge on appeal as it was a figure agreed upon by consent of the parties before the Trial Court, and there was no basis to interfere with such consent. On the multiplier, the court found that the Trial Court's use of 17 years was reasonable and defensible, as it would have taken the deceased to the standard retirement age of 60 years. The court emphasized that the selection of a multiplier is not an exact science and that the Trial Court's approach was within the range of judicial discretion. Accordingly, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Partnership & another v Njuguna & another (Sued as the Administrators of the Estate of Beatrice Wairimu – Deceased) (Civil Appeal E161 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 8862 (KLR) (Civ) (11 July 2024) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 8862 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal E161 of 2023
AB Mwamuye, J
July 11, 2024
Between
Integrated YMR Partnership
1st Appellant
Henry Olando Xavier
2nd Appellant
and
Eunice Njuguna
1st Respondent
Samuel Kiarie
2nd Respondent
Sued as the Administrators of the Estate of Beatrice Wairimu – Deceased
Judgment
1. The Appellants have filed this Appeal aggrieved with only one aspect of the Judgment dated 5th March, 2021 delivered by the Hon. D.W. Mburu (SPM) in Milimani CM Civil Case No. 565 of 2018; which is the Trial Court’s assessment of the multiplicand and the multiplier for the purposes of the award for loss of dependency.
2. In their written submissions dated 20th March, 2024, the Appellants take issue with the base sum of Kes. 35,000. 00 per month used by the Trial Court as the multiplicand and they state that the Trial Court should have used the minimum wage applicable at the time of the trial, which was Kes. 17,447. 15 per month.
3. The Respondents’ Written Submissions dated 21st July, 2023 observe that the Appellants’ position for Kes. 17,447. 15 per month was also made before the Trial Court, while they had claimed a figure of Kes. 80,000. 00 per month based on the deceased’s Letter of Offer and Appointment dated 1st July, 2017. The Respondents then proceed to inform this Court that the parties consented to the figure of Kes. 35,000. 00 when they appeared before the Trial Court on 25th January, 2021; a fact I have confirmed from the proceedings included in the Record of Appeal.
4. In their written submissions dated 20th March, 2024 the Appellants have cited two cases where the court upheld a multiplier of 15 years for a deceased person aged 43 years, the same age as the deceased in this Appeal at the time of her death, in furtherance of their contention that the multiplier of 17 years applied by the Trial Court was erroneous.
5. In response, the Respondents’ Written Submissions dated 21st July, 2023 contend that the use of 17 years by the Trial Court was proper, as the deceased would have been expected to work to 60 years.
6. On the issue of the multiplicand, I find that having been subject to a consent between the parties this Court should not interfere with the same since it was an agreement between the parties and it was considered by the Trial Court in its judgment and found to be a fair and reasonable estimate of the deceased’s net income.
7. On the issue of the multiplier, I find that the Trial Court’s use of 17 years was appropriate as it would have taken the deceased to the standard retirement age of 60 years. The multiplier to be used is not an exact science and authorities can be found that would argue for a greater number of years or a lesser number of years. The Trial Court adopted a reasonable and defensible number of years.
8. Consequently, I find that this Appeal is not merited, and I dismiss the same with costs to the Respondents.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN NAIROBI THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2024. BAHATI MWAMUYEJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Mwangi Counsel for the AppellantsMs. Kisiangani Counsel for the RespondentMr. Guyo Court Assistant