Katodi & 2 others v Kormot (Civil Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5385 (KLR) (22 April 2026) (Judgment)

Katodi & 2 others v Kormot (Civil Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5385 (KLR) (22 April 2026) (Judgment)

The award of Kshs.1,000,000/= as general damages for the respondent's injuries was reasonable, neither too high nor too low, and based on comparable awards; the appellants' financial status is not a relevant consideration; there was no misdirection or misapprehension of evidence by the trial court.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5385 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Samson Ngole Katodi; Appellant: Edwin Pkemoi; Appellant: Joel Kibet; Respondent: Alfred Y. Kormot
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E003 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, General Damages, Appeals Procedure, Standard of Proof
Source Language
english
Tort Law Personal Injury Assessment of Damages General Damages Appeals Procedure Standard of Proof

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Samson Ngole Katodi

Appellant

Edwin Pkemoi

Appellant

Joel Kibet

Appellant

Alfred Y. Kormot

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in the assessment of general damages
  2. 2 Whether the award of Kshs.1,000,000/= was excessive and against the weight of evidence
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved damages to the required standard

Ratio Decidendi

The award of Kshs.1,000,000/= as general damages for the respondent's injuries was reasonable, neither too high nor too low, and based on comparable awards; the appellants' financial status is not a relevant consideration; there was no misdirection or misapprehension of evidence by the trial court.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.