[2011] KEHC 3004 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had proved the deceased's employment and income through documentary evidence, including a letter from Africa Online and payslips. The court adopted a monthly income of KES 30,000 for the deceased and applied a multiplier of 15 to calculate loss of dependency under the Fatal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3004 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Zipporah Karimi; Defendant: Harun Muriuki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 101 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Fatal Accidents Act, Law Reform Act, Assessment of Damages, Loss of Dependency, Pain and Suffering
- 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
Zipporah Karimi
Plaintiff
Harun Muriuki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages under the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of Martin Mbijiwe.
- 2 Whether the income and dependency of the deceased were sufficiently proved to justify the claimed damages.
- 3 Whether special damages were proved and should be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had proved the deceased's employment and income through documentary evidence, including a letter from Africa Online and payslips. The court adopted a monthly income of KES 30,000 for the deceased and applied a multiplier of 15 to calculate loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act, resulting in an award of KES 3,600,000. Under the Law Reform Act, the court awarded KES 100,000 for pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life. However, applying the principle against double recovery, the court deducted the Law Reform Act award from the total, leaving a net sum of KES 3,600,000 payable to the plaintiff. No special damages were awarded due to...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Orders
- Plaintiff awarded KES 3,600,000 as damages for loss of dependency and under the Law Reform Act, net of double recovery.
- Plaintiff to have costs and interest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 101 OF 2007
ZIPPORAH KARIMI……………...........…………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HARUN MURIUKI ……….......……………………… DEFENDANT
CoramMwera J
Oonge for plaintiff
Kioko for Mare for defendant
Njoroge court clerk
JUDGEMENT
About to follow is the judgement in NRI HCCC 101/07 – a case heard side by side with HCCC 17/07 as the test case. Therein the liability was found as against the 1st and 2nd third parties (Dualle, Farah). While in HCCC 17/07 the deceased was one Lewis Mbijiwe, in HCCC 101/07 the deceased is one Martin Mbijiwe. Their mother and legal representative remains the plaintiff.
When assessment of damages came up the plaintiff took the witness stand and told the court that Martin who died in the same accident as Lewis had no family, but he was employed by Africa Online (Exh P1). His income was as per the payslips (Exh 2) for months of July, August, September 2004. The deceased used to assist PW1 and the rest of the family financially.
Asked to submit the plaintiff urged the court to find for her under both the Law Reform and the Fatal Accidents Acts in damages, liability having been settled in HCCC 17/07.
Under the Law Reform Act, a sum of sh. 100,000/= was proposed while under the Fatal Accidents Act a salary of sh. 42, 683/05 per month was considered a proper base with a multiplier of 15, Martin having died at age twenty seven. Loss of dependency was worked at sh. 5,121,955/= to be awarded.
The defendant started off with a claim that negligence was not proved against the defendant, despite the finding in HCCC 17/07 that it was the 1st and 2nd third parties whom the court found liable (see above). The other point the court found hard to accept was that the plaintiff did not place before court evidence that Martin was employed or that he earned an income. But a letter from African Online Ltd dated 29. 6.04 was produced (Exh P1), and 3 payslips were produced (Exh P2 (a) (b) (c ). Up to this point the court was left wondering whether Mr. Mare for the defendant was in these proceedings all the time including in HCCC 17/07, in order to file the submission dated 8/7/10. But it was added that special damages were not proved by tendering receipts. Be that as it may.
In this court’s mind the following is the determination of the case:
i)Under the law Reform Act
Pain and suffering- sh. 30,000/=
Loss of expectation of life – sh. 70,000/=
Total sh. 100,000
ii)Under the fatal Accidents Act. The court accepted that martin died at age 27, unmarried and with no children. He supported his mother plaintiff with part of his income from Africa online. The 3 salary slips tendered in evidence show that the deceased earned a net salary of sh. 23,333/15 in July 2004, sh. 22,000/= in August 2004 and sh. 41,683/05 in September the same year. The plaintiff urged the court to adopt a sum of sh. 42,683. 05 per month. It was not clear as to the source of this sum but then nothing was said about the fluctuations, which gave the average of sh. 29,9005. 30/= per month. In this circumstance the court adopts a sum of sh. 30,000/= per month as income. Taking a multiplier of 15 it arrives at a sum of sh. 3,600,000/= loss of dependency.
(30,000 x 15 x12 x2/3)
There was no prayer or proof for special damages and none is granted.
The grand award is:
Under the law reform Act -sh. 100,000/=
Fatal Accidents Act - sh. 3,600,000/=
Total sh.3,700,000/=
But that the plaintiff is the same claimant standing to benefit under the 2 Acts, the principle to avoid double benefits going to one claimant applies (see Kemp & Kemp on Quartum of Damages). Thus the award under the former Act is deducted from the grand total leaving & net of sh. 3,600,000/=(three million six hundred thousand) payable to the plaintiff together with costs and interest.
Judgement delivered on 16. 3.11
J. W. MWERA
JUDGE