Paul N.Njoroge v Abdul Sabuni Sabonyo [2015] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• The trial court dismissed the claim for future medical expenses as a special damage requiring strict pleading. The appellate court reclassified it as general damages, noting the trial court's confusion in categorization. It awarded Kshs.100,000/= for potential future surgery, citing medical evidence of uncertainty and the need to account for the plaintiff's best interests. The court referenced precedents affirming that future medical expenses fall under general damages when pleaded appropriately.
• The trial court dismissed special damages (medical and transport expenses) for non-compliance with the Stamp Duty Act and lack of strict proof. The appellate court found this rejection erroneous, as the Stamp Duty Act provides remedies for non-stamped documents and the plaintiff's evidence was credible. The court awarded Kshs.380,257/= for medical expenses (after deducting government-paid Kshs.50,000/+) and Kshs.76,300/= for transport, totaling Kshs.456,557/+. The trial court's strict application of stamping requirements was overturned.
• The court addressed the trial court's assessment of general damages for pain and suffering, which was initially set at Kshs.200,000/=. The appellate court found this amount inordinately low due to a misapprehension of the medical evidence, including multiple surgeries, severe injuries, and long-term complications like osteoarthritis. It substituted the award with Kshs.500,000/=. The court cited comparable cases with higher damages for similar injuries and emphasized the need to reflect the true extent of the plaintiff's suffering.
• The plaintiff claimed diminished earning capacity due to injuries preventing promotion in his 25-year police career. The trial court dismissed this, noting no actual loss as he retired normally. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding insufficient evidence to link his lack of promotion to the accident. The employer's letter was deemed speculative, and the plaintiff's continued employment at the same salary negated the claim.

Holdings

• The Court of Appeal increased the general damages for pain and suffering from Kshs.200,000/= to Kshs.500,000/=, finding the original award inordinately low due to misapprehension of the severity of the injuries.
• Future medical expenses were awarded Kshs.100,000/=, reclassifying the claim as general damages and acknowledging the possibility of necessary future surgery despite conflicting medical opinions.
• The special damages were revised from Kshs.100/= to Kshs.380,257/=, recognizing proved medical expenses (Kshs.303,957/+) and transport expenses (Kshs.76,300/=), despite prior rejections by the trial court for procedural non-compliance.
• The claim for diminished earning capacity was dismissed, as the appellant remained employed in the police service at the same level until normal retirement, negating the alleged impact on his career.

Remedies

• The appeal against the claim for loss of earning capacity was dismissed, as the appellant remained employed until normal retirement
• The order dismissing the claim for future medical treatment was set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs.100,000/= for potential future surgery
• The High Court's original assessment of general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities was set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs.500,000/=
• The assessment of special damages was set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs.380,257/=, incorporating proved medical expenses (Kshs.303,957/=) and transport expenses (Kshs.76,300/=)

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court clarified that special damages must be 'specifically pleaded and strictly proved,' but also noted that unstamped documents under the Stamp Duty Act should not be peremptorily rejected without affording the party an opportunity to pay the required stamp duty and penalties, referencing precedents like Stallion Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ignazzio Messina.
• The court outlined the principles for appellate interference with damages awards, emphasizing that an appellate court may only adjust such awards if they are 'so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate' or if the trial judge misapplied legal principles or misapprehended evidence. This standard was derived from cases like Kimatu Mbuvi v. Augustine Munyao Kioko and Butt v. Khan.

Precedent Name

• Sosphinaf Company Ltd & Another v. Daniel Nganga Kanyi
• Kimatu Mbuvi T/A Kimatu Mbuvi & Bros v. Augustine Munyao Kioko
• Beatrice Wairimu Wandurua v. Dorman Ltd
• Pitty Gathigia Baaru & Another v. Kenya Bus Services Ltd & Another
• Stallion Insurance Company Limited v. Ignazzio Messina & Co S.P.A
• Texcal House Service Station Ltd & Another v. Timo Kalevi Jappien & Another
• Ruth Lillian Nyawir Okoth v. Philip Olago Odeny
• Zakayo Chamwama Busakha v. Spice World Ltd
• Omar Hassan & Another v. Rashid Salim & Another

Cited Statute

Judge Name

• S. Gatembu Kairu
• R. N. Nambuye
• P. N. Waki

Passage Text

• We award the figure of Kshs.100,000/= [for future medical expenses]... subject to proper professional assessment.
• The course open to the learned Judge was... give an opportunity to the party producing it to pay the stamp duty and the prescribed penalty.
• We re-assess the general damages for pain suffering and loss of amenities at Kshs.500,000/=.