[2015] KEHC 5102 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5102 (KLR)

The court held that the trial magistrate's adoption of a 5-year multiplier in assessing damages for loss of dependency was not unreasonable given the deceased's age of 78 years. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's discretion, as the multiplier was within the range applicable for a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5102 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Susan Bondo & Zedekiah Bondo (suing as the administrators and dependants of Walter Bondo Obeto (deceased)); Respondent: Zacharia Nyambane Mwita
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 10 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fatal Accidents Act, Assessment of Damages, Multiplier Principle, Dependency Claims
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Fatal Accidents Act Assessment of Damages Multiplier Principle Dependency Claims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Bondo & Zedekiah Bondo (suing as the administrators and dependants of Walter Bondo Obeto (deceased))

Appellant

Zacharia Nyambane Mwita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in adopting a multiplier of 5 years in assessing damages for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's discretion in the assessment of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the trial magistrate's adoption of a 5-year multiplier in assessing damages for loss of dependency was not unreasonable given the deceased's age of 78 years. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's discretion, as the multiplier was within the range applicable for a person of such age, and the assessment of damages was neither inordinately low nor based on irrelevant considerations. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original award stood.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.