[2018] KEHC 1982 (KLR)
The appellate court found that while the respondent did sustain injuries during the course of employment, the trial court erred in its assessment of damages by considering the possibility of an arachnoid cyst being caused by the accident without sufficient medical evidence. The correct approach was to base the award...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 1982 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: W.E. Tilley (M) Limited; Respondent: Stephen Waiganjo Mwangi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 220 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Workplace Injury, Employer Liability, Negligence, Damages Assessment
- 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
W.E. Tilley (M) Limited
Appellant
Stephen Waiganjo Mwangi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was liable for the respondent's injuries sustained during employment.
- 2 Whether the lower court erred in finding the appellant guilty of breach of statutory duty and negligence.
- 3 Whether the award of Kshs. 900,000 in general damages was justified given the nature of the injuries.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that while the respondent did sustain injuries during the course of employment, the trial court erred in its assessment of damages by considering the possibility of an arachnoid cyst being caused by the accident without sufficient medical evidence. The correct approach was to base the award solely on the proven injuries, which were a concussion and soft tissue injuries. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applied, making the appellant liable in the absence of contrary evidence. However, the award of Kshs. 900,000 was inordinately high for the injuries sustained and was reduced to Kshs. 300,000 in general damages, with special damages of Kshs. 4,000 as proved. The...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The judgment of the lower court is set aside.
- Judgment is entered for the respondent for Kshs. 300,000 in general damages and Kshs. 4,000 in special damages.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL 220 OF 2015
W.E. TILLEY (M) LIMITED.......................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN WAIGANJO MWANGI...........................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the judgment of the Hon. E. Wanjala
deliveredon 9th December, 2016 in CMCC NO.834 of 2016)
JUDGMENT
The respondent was injured in the cause of his employment with the appellant. He brought this suit for damages for the injuries he sustained and blamed the appellant for the same. The appellant denied the respondent’s claim but after the full trial the court found in favour of the respondent and held the appellant fully responsible for the injuries sustained by the respondent. The court then proceeded to award the respondent the sum of Kshs. 900,000/= general damages plus Kshs. 4,000/= special damages. The appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment and lodged this appeal.
In the Memorandum of Appeal dated 12th May, 2015 the lower court was faulted for holding the appellant guilty of breach of statutory duty and negligence, when the respondent was unable to pin point any shortcomings on the part of the appellant vis a vis that duty of care. The lower court was also faulted for awarding the sum of Kshs. 900,000/= general damages when the only injury was of the most minimal nature. Finally, the court was faulted for considering that an arachnoid cyst was caused as a result of the said accident.
Both parties have filed submissions herein and cited some authorities. The respondent had worked with the appellant for two years. He told the court that they were supplied with gloves and gumboots. They had asked for helmets but were not given. In the process of working on the material day, they were loading fish into a container when a box fell and hit him on the head. He had been asked by the manager to collect some fish that had dropped on the ground when this happened. Apart from the pleadings he did not describe how this box fell onto his head causing the injury. It was in his evidence that his head had previously been injured.
He called one Dr. Kago who produced the medical report exhibit 1 and which is part of the record of appeal.On the other hand the appellant called Dr. M.M. Qureshi a consultant neurosurgeon who testified and produced the medical report defence exhibit 1. Dr. Kago under cross examination told the court that the blunt injury cannot lead to a cyst. Dr. Qureshi on the other hand observed that the scan to the head showed a cyst which however was not related to the accident.
The medical reports are in agreement that the plaintiff sustained the injuries as set out in the plaint, that is, blunt injury on the head, head injury, soft tissue injuries, physical and psychological pains.
The appellant did not deny the injury sustained by the respondent and in the absence of any other contradicting evidence, then the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies and therefore I find the appellant was wholly to blame for the injuries sustained by the respondent.
The learned trial magistrate was rather casual in his consideration of the medical report and the general damages awarded. I have no doubt however that he read the cases cited because he refers to the proposed awards. Whatever the case, the cyst alleged to have been found in the respondent’s head may or may not be connected to the said accident. There was no proper analysis by the doctors as to the age of the said cyst or more importantly, if that can be determined by medical evidence. It is therefore a misdirection to rely on that condition to assess damages payable.
The appellate court may interfere with the award of the lower court if it is inordinately too high or too low so as to reflect an erroneous assessment thereof, or if the lower court applied wrong principles, or where the lower court took into consideration immaterial leaving out material facts.
Having reviewed the evidence as required of me and going by the material presented, the appellant at most suffered a concussion and related soft tissues injuries. Those injuries could not attract the award of Kshs. 900,000/= as awarded by the trial court .I find the award inordinately high to attract interference. Doing the best I can, I find that the correct award should be Kshs. 300,000/=. Proved special damages amount to Kshs. 4,000/=.
Accordingly, this appeal succeeds by setting aside the judgment of the lower court and in place thereof enter judgment in favour of the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 300,000/= general damages and Kshs. 4,000/= special damages. The respondent shall have the costs of the suit in the lower court in full while he shall be entitled to 1/3 costs in this appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of November, 2018.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE