[2016] KEHC 469 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence regarding the respondent's injuries, employment, and future medical needs. The awards for general damages, future medical costs, loss of earnings, and special damages were all pleaded, supported by credible testimony and documentary evidence,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 469 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Woche Hussein Hirbo; Appellant: Daro Chato; Respondent: Rose Khausi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 24 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Road Traffic Accidents, Assessment of Damages, Contributory Negligence, Loss of Earnings, Future Medical Expenses
- 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
Woche Hussein Hirbo
Appellant
Daro Chato
Appellant
Rose Khausi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the award of general damages to the respondent was excessive.
- 2 Whether the respondent proved the costs of future medical care.
- 3 Whether the award for loss of future earnings was justified and supported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence regarding the respondent's injuries, employment, and future medical needs. The awards for general damages, future medical costs, loss of earnings, and special damages were all pleaded, supported by credible testimony and documentary evidence, and calculated using reasonable multipliers and rates. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's discretion, as the appellants failed to demonstrate any error in principle or excessiveness in the awards. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO 24 OF 2012
WOCHE HUSSEIN HIRBO ………....……….….1ST APPELLANT
DARO CHATO ………….………………………2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
ROSE KHAUSI …………...………………….…….. RESPODENT
(Being an appeal against the judgment of Honourable A.K. Ndungu, Chief Magistrate, delivered in Nairobi CMCC No. 7437 of 2008 on the 11th January, 2012)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff was injured in a road traffic accident involving a motor vehicle Reg. No. KAN 522 H owned by the 2nd appellant and driven by the 1st appellant. She brought a suit against both appellants claiming damages for the said injuries. After a full trial the court found in her favour and awarded Kshs. 1,000,000/= general damages, Kshs. 250,000/= future medical costs, Kshs. 1,411,200/= loss of earnings and Kshs. 183,870/= special damages. The total sum added to Kshs. 2,845,070/= which was discounted by 10% contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, leaving a balance of Kshs. 2,560,563/=.
The appellants were aggrieved by that judgment and filed this appeal. In the memorandum of appeal they complain that the award of general damages was excessive and that the respondent did not prove the costs of future medical care. The appellant also faulted the lower court for awarding loss of future earrings which was not proved.
It is my duty to go over the evidence adduced in the lower court and arrive at independent conclusions. The decision on liability depends on the facts, the evidence and the discretion of the court. The lower court addressed the evidence adduced by the respondent. He looked at the medical report and considered decided cases on similar injuries. My own assessment of the doctor’s reports and the said injuries persuade me that the said award was not excessive.
The doctors also gave the estimate of what would be required for the respondent to undergo future medical intervention. The sum of Kshs. 250,000/= was therefore justified.
On the subject of loss of earning and earning capacity, the lower court observed that the respondent testified on oath that she worked as a house servant and later a dry cleaner. That evidence, the court observed, was not controverted or even shaken under cross examination. The court believed her evidence. I also do.
At the age of 42 the lower court adopted a multiplier of 12 years; and using a modest pay of Kshs. 350/= per day calculated the sum due and payable for loss of earnings. Again, I am persuaded that the court followed the right indicators. It is worth noting that all these damages were pleaded in the plaint dated 8th October, 2008. Special damages amounted to 183,870/=. These were also proved.
I have seen no reason to fault the trial court and therefore this appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 14th Day of December, 2016.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE