Musabi v Dodha & another (Civil Appeal E407 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 2473 (KLR) (Civ) (13 February 2025) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• The Trial Court found the Appellant failed to prove injuries from the accident due to inconsistent medical report dates. The court considered corroboration from a P3 form, police abstract, and Dr. Okere's report, concluding the Appellant satisfactorily proved his injuries on a balance of probabilities.
• The Trial Court rejected special damages as the medical receipt predated the accident and lacked a stamp. The court found the duty to affix stamps lies with the issuer, not the payee, and upheld the Appellant's claim for Kshs. 29,063/- in special damages.

Holdings

• The court found that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's claim for injuries due to date inconsistencies in the medical reports. The evidence, including the P3 form, police abstract, and medical report by Dr. Okere, corroborated the Appellant's averments about the accident on 27th February 2023 and the injuries sustained. The court substituted the Trial Court's judgment, holding that the Appellant proved his injuries satisfactorily on a balance of probability.
• The court set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of the Appellant's special damages claim. It ruled that the absence of a revenue stamp on the medical receipt did not invalidate the claim, as the duty to affix the stamp lies with the issuer, not the payee. The court substituted the Trial Court's finding, holding the Appellant strictly proved the medical expenses of Kshs. 29,063/-.

Remedies

• The Appellant was awarded the costs of the Appeal and the lower court proceedings.
• The Appellant was awarded general damages of Kshs. 500,000/- based on comparable injuries assessed by the Trial Court.
• Special damages of Kshs. 29,063/- were granted as pleaded by the Appellant.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court applied the balance of probability standard to assess whether the Appellant proved his injuries, emphasizing that honest mistakes in evidence alignment should not disqualify claims absent material prejudice. The judgment also clarified that the burden of challenging evidence inconsistencies lies with the opposing party, and strict proof requirements for special damages must be balanced against procedural fairness.
• The judgment highlighted that the Respondents failed to meet their burden of challenging the Appellant's evidence of injuries and medical expenses, as they did not contest the inconsistencies raised. The court emphasized that parties must actively address evidence flaws to avoid waiving their right to challenge them.

Precedent Name

• Henry Binya Oyala vs. Sabera O. Itira
• Henry Binya Oyala vs. Subera O. Itira
• Idris & Another vs. Lime & Another
• Ben Ocharo & Others vs. Kenya Farmers' & Cooperative Society

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 20. Further, I set aside that part of the Trial Court's judgment that found the Appellant had not strictly proved the medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident and substitute thereof with a finding that the Appellant strictly proved the medical expenses incurred.
• 14. Accordingly, on this issue I hold that the Appellant proved his injuries satisfactorily.
• 19. Ergo, I set aside that part of the Trial Court's judgment that found the Appellant had not proven his injuries on a balance of probability and substitute with a finding that the Appellant had, on a balance of probability proven his injuries.