https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8863

Mbiyu v Gachie (Civil Appeal 1402 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8863 (KLR) (Civ) (10 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8863 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal 1402 of 2024 AN Ongeri, J June 10, 2026 Between Rose Wambui Mbiyu Appellant and Benson Waithiaka Gachie Respondent (Being an appeal from the Judgment of Hon. N. Ruguru (SPM) in Milimani CMCC NO.5407 of 2019 delivered on 8/11/2024) Judgment 1.The respondent in this appeal, Benson Waithaka Gachie, sued the appellant, Rose Wambui Mbiyu, in Milimani CMCC NO.5407 of 2019 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 26th October 2018 while riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle along Ngong Road, after the appellant’s motor vehicle lost control and collided with the motorcycle. 2.The appellant filed an amended defence but did not call any witnesses at trial. The respondent testified and presented evidence including a police abstract that blamed the appellant’s driver for the accident, and the court found that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof, holding the appellant 100% liable. 3.On quantum, medical reports from both parties confirmed the respondent suffered a right knee injury involving tear of the medial patellar retinaculum, medial collateral ligament oedema, tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, and tear of the posterior collateral ligament, with permanent incapacity assessed at 10% and 7% by two doctors. 4.The trial court considered previous authorities and inflationary trends and awarded Kshs. 1,200,000 for general damages for pain and suffering, plus Kshs. 20,050 in special damages as strictly proved. 5.No award was made for further medical expenses due to lack of evidence. The trial court entered final judgment for the plaintiff for a total of Kshs. 1,222,050, with costs and interest at court rates from the date of judgment, delivered on 8th November 2024. 6.The appellant has appealed against the judgment on the following grounds;i.That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding the Appellant negligent and liable for the accident contrary to the facts and evidence of the case.ii.That the Learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law by failing to consider the Appellant’s submissions and cited authorities on liability/negligence, thereby making a wrong judgment.iii.That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact by assessing damages that were manifestly high and inappropriate given the facts and evidence of the case.iv.That the Learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law by failing to consider the Appellant’s submissions and cited authorities on quantum of damages, and instead entirely relying on the Respondent’s submissions, thereby making a wrong judgment.v.That the Learned Magistrate erred in fact and law by failing to distinguish the Appellant’s authorities on quantum of damages. 7.The parties filed written submissions as follows; The appellant submitted that that she has appealed against the judgment delivered on 8 November 2024 by the Senior Principal Magistrate in Milimani CMCC NO.5407 of 2019. 8.The appeal originally raised five grounds, but the appellant explicitly abandons the challenge to the trial court’s finding on negligence and liability, leaving only the challenge to the quantum of damages. 9.The appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly consider her submissions and the authorities she cited on damages, instead relying on those of the respondent. 10.The trial court awarded Kshs 1,200,000, which the appellant contends is grossly high given the injuries sustained by the respondent. 11.The respondent suffered a right knee injury with swelling and joint effusion, tear of the medial patellar retinaculum, oedema of the medial collateral ligament, tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, and tear of the posterior collateral ligament. 12.Medical reports assessed permanent incapacity at 7% and 10%. 13.The appellant submits that the award should be reduced to Kshs 400,000, citing appellate principles that an appellate court may interfere only if the trial court applied wrong principles or made an entirely erroneous estimate. 14.The appellant contrasts the respondent’s cited authorities, which involved far more severe injuries such as degloving and fractures of upper limbs, with her own cited cases. 15.In one of the appellant’s cited cases, an award of Kshs 1,000,000 for fractures of the fibula and tibia was reduced to Kshs 600,000. 16.The appellant prays that the judgment on quantum be set aside and substituted with a lower award, and that she be awarded the costs of the appeal. 17.The respondent argues that the trial court did not err in its findings on liability or quantum, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed with costs. 18.The trial court was correct to apportion 100% liability to the appellant because the appellant failed to adduce any evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent. 19.The respondent proved his case on a balance of probabilities, while the appellant provided no evidence to counter the respondent’s version of events. 20.The trial court’s award of Kshs. 1,200,000 in general damages was justified given the nature of the injuries sustained by the respondent. 21.The respondent’s injuries included partial tear of the right knee collateral ligament, fear medial meniscus, swollen and painful right knee, inability to use the right knee, and a permanent incapacity of 10%. 22.The appellant had proposed only Kshs. 400,000 in general damages, while the respondent had sought Kshs. 2,000,000, making the trial court’s award of Kshs. 1,200,000 a reasonable middle ground. 23.The respondent cites comparable cases: Robert Gitau Kanyiri v Charles R. Kahiga & Two Others (Nakuru HCCC No. 22 of 2009) where Kshs. 1,000,000 was awarded for similar injuries, and Mbithi & another v Kimutai (Civil Appeal E296 of 2024) where Kshs. 2,000,000 was awarded. 24.An appellate court should only interfere with a trial court’s decision in exceptional circumstances, such as no evidence, misapprehension of evidence, or wrong legal principles, none of which apply here. 25.The respondent urges the High Court to dismiss the appeal in its entirety with costs to the respondent. 26.The parties filed written submissions, and it is noted that the appellant explicitly abandoned the challenge to the trial court’s finding on negligence and liability. 27.The only issue for determination in this appeal is whether the trial court’s award of Kshs. 1,200,000.00 in general damages for pain and suffering was so manifestly high as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, warranting interference by this court. 28.The principles upon which an appellate court can interfere with an award of general damages are well settled. 29.This court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low that it amounts to an entirely erroneous estimate, or unless it is shown that the trial court proceeded on wrong principles, misapprehended the evidence, or took into account irrelevant factors while ignoring relevant ones. 30.The appellate court is not justified in substituting a figure of its own simply because it would have awarded a different figure had it tried the case at first instance. 31.The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s award fell into this category of being an entirely erroneous estimate. 32.In the present case, the respondent suffered a right knee injury comprising tear of the medial patellar retinaculum, medial collateral ligament oedema, tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, and tear of the posterior collateral ligament. 33.Medical reports assessed his permanent incapacity at 7% and 10%. The appellant urged this court to reduce the award to Kshs. 400,000.00, citing cases involving fractures of the fibula and tibia. 34.However, upon reviewing comparable authorities, this court finds that the trial court’s award of Kshs. 1,200,000.00 cannot be said to be inordinately high. 35.In the case of Mbithi & another v Kimutai (supra), an award of Kshs. 2,000,000.00 was given for comparable injuries was considered. 36.While the appellant’s cited cases may support a lower award, the trial court's figure falls within a reasonable range of judicial opinion given the nature of the respondent’s injuries, which involved multiple tears to knee ligaments and meniscus, the attendant pain and suffering, and the finding of permanent incapacity. 37.The trial court also properly considered previous authorities and inflationary trends in arriving at its figure. 38.For these reasons, this court finds no merit in the appeal against quantum. The judgment of the trial court is hereby upheld in its entirety. 39.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent. 40.Orders to issue accordingly. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.ASENATH ONGERIJUDGEDelivered in the presence of:-Miss Kelima holding brief for Miss Kamau for the AppellantMiss Maina for the RespondentCourt Assistant - Crispin