Azan Enterprises Ltd v Zuhura Syongit Robert [2020] eKLR

Key Facts

Deceased Name

Issues

• The appeal challenged the trial court's Kshs.900,000 award for loss of dependency, arguing it was inordinately high for a 6-year-old minor and not properly justified by evidence or legal principles.
• The respondents argued the appeal was invalid due to late filing and absence of a certified decree, but the court ruled these issues did not warrant dismissal under constitutional principles of substantive justice.
• The court addressed the legal requirement to deduct Law Reform Act damages (loss of expectation of life) from Fatal Accidents Act awards, clarifying that no mathematical deduction is mandated but principles must be considered.
• The court evaluated if the trial magistrate's award of Kshs.40,000 for pain and suffering, considering the deceased's immediate death, was in line with legal principles and precedents.

Date of Death

Holdings

Remedies

• The court awarded Kshs.900,000.00 for loss of dependency, included in the total damages of Kshs.885,381.25 after applying 15% contributory negligence.
• The court awarded Kshs.100,000.00 for loss of expectation of life, part of the total damages after a 15% contributory negligence adjustment.
• The court awarded Kshs.1,625.00 for special damages, which was part of the total damages after a 15% contributory negligence reduction.
• The court awarded Kshs.40,000.00 for pain and suffering, which was included in the total damages of Kshs.885,381.25 after applying a 15% contributory negligence reduction.

Monetary Damages

Probate Status

Legal Principles

• The Court clarified that while damages under the Law Reform Act (loss of expectation of life) must be considered when assessing Fatal Accidents Act (loss of dependency) awards, there is no requirement for mathematical deduction. This was supported by references to Hellen Waruguru Waweru v Kiarie Shoe Stores and Board of Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya v NIA, which emphasized that 'taken into account' does not mandate deduction to avoid double compensation.
• This Court affirmed the trial Magistrate's assessment of damages, emphasizing that appellate courts should not disturb damage awards unless they are inordinately high/low or based on incorrect legal principles. The judgment cited principles from cases like Bashir Ahmed Butt v Uwais Ahmed Khan and Rook v Rairrie, reinforcing that appellate courts must avoid substituting their own discretion unless the trial court's approach was fundamentally flawed.

Succession Regime

Precedent Name

• Daniel Mwangi Kimemi & 2 others v J.G.M & S.M.M
• Sammy Kipkori Kosgei v Edina Musikoye Mulinya & Another
• Henry Ilanga v Manyema Manyoka
• Cecilia W. Mwangi & Another v Ruth Mwangi
• Chen Wembo & 2 others v I.K.K. & Another
• Hellen Waruguru Waweru v Kiarie Shoe Stores Limited
• Eston Mwirigi Ndege & Anor v Damaris Kariari
• S.M.K. v Josephat Nkari Makaga
• Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd
• Hyder Nthenya Musili & Another v China Wu Yi Limited & Another

Executor Name

Cited Statute

• Fatal Accidents Act
• Civil Procedure Act
• Law Reform Act

Executor Appointment

Judge Name

Passage Text

• I see no reason as to why the trial Court should deduct the damages awarded under the Law Reform Act from the total award... There is no requirement in Law or otherwise for the Court to engage in a mathematical deduction.
• the Learned trial Magistrate correctly exercised his judicial discretion and applied his mind to the principles on the award with regard to general damages for pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life and loss of dependency.
• Consequently, I uphold the Judgment of the trial Court under this heading and award the same Kshs.40,000.00/=

Beneficiary Classes