[2018] KEHC 4731 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 4731 (KLR)

The court found that the trial magistrate did not consider irrelevant factors nor was the award of Kshs 700,000 excessive given the nature and severity of the respondent's injuries, including a 35% permanent disability to the left hand. The authorities cited by the appellant involved less severe injuries and lower...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 4731 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ready Consultancy Co. Limited; Respondent: Geoffrey Omuse Etiang
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 12 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Personal Injury, Industrial Accident, Assessment of Disability
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Quantum of Damages Personal Injury Industrial Accident Assessment of Disability

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ready Consultancy Co. Limited

Appellant

Geoffrey Omuse Etiang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial court applied correct legal principles in assessing quantum of damages for personal injuries sustained by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the award of Kshs 700,000 as general damages was excessive in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial magistrate did not consider irrelevant factors nor was the award of Kshs 700,000 excessive given the nature and severity of the respondent's injuries, including a 35% permanent disability to the left hand. The authorities cited by the appellant involved less severe injuries and lower disability percentages, making them distinguishable. The respondent's authorities were more relevant and comparable. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the correct legal principles in assessing damages and that the award was not so inordinately high as to warrant interference. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.