[2015] KEHC 842 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate's award of damages for the respondent's workplace injury, including the assessment of general and special damages and the apportionment of liability, was within acceptable limits and not so excessive or inadequate as to warrant appellate interference. The appellate court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 842 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Waridi Limited; Respondent: Charles Adwogo Kidaga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 68 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Assessment of Damages, Apportionment of Liability
- 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
Waridi Limited
Appellant
Charles Adwogo Kidaga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate's award of damages for workplace injury was so high or low as to warrant appellate interference.
- 2 Whether the apportionment of liability between the parties was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate's award of damages for the respondent's workplace injury, including the assessment of general and special damages and the apportionment of liability, was within acceptable limits and not so excessive or inadequate as to warrant appellate interference. The appellate court emphasized its role in reviewing, not substituting, the trial court's discretion unless the award was manifestly erroneous. The evidence, including two medical reports confirming irreversible blindness in one eye and a 33% disability, supported the award. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in principle or quantum to justify disturbing the trial...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2010
WARIDI LIMITED ………………………………APPELLANT
VERUS
CHARLES ADWOGO KIDAGA ……………RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The respondent herein was employed by the appellant when he was injured in the cause of his employment. He sued the appellant for damages and after a full trial he was awarded Kshs. 400,000/= general damages while special damages were agreed at 2,000/=. Liability had already been agreed at 70% as against the appellant while the respondent was to shoulder 30% thereof.
Two medical reports were produced by consent without calling the makers. The first report was by Dr. Wokabi dated 16th June, 2006 while the second one was by Dr. Wambugu dated 30th November, 2007. The injuries observed by Dr. Wokabi and contained in the said medical report were left cornea opacity; the left eye was also blind. That blindness is irreversible and he assessed disability at 33%. The doctor observed that the respondent was in a precarious situation in that he will be vulnerable to blindness should the other eye become damaged from any cause.
On the other hand Dr. Wambugu also found that the left eye was blind but it was difficult to clearly point out why the eye was blind. He suggested an ophthalmological examination in order to assess the posterior pole of the left eye to establish the cause of blindness. This examination was never carried out.
The cases cited by counsel are not included in the judgment but the learned trial magistrate was alive to those authorities and had alluded to them in her judgment.
This court being an appellate court is guided by the evidence on record and all the material before it in order to make an independent evaluation. It matters not whether it could have awarded less or more damages with regard to the injuries sustained. It is supposed also to examine whether or not the award was too low or too high to call for its intervention.
Going by the material before me and the cited authorities, I am not satisfied that I should disturb the award made by the learned trial magistrate. It was within acceptable limits. It was not too high so as to call for any interference. This appeal is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 25th Day of November, 2015.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE