Catholic Diocese of Murang’a v Koirain & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Derrick Koiraini Karigi (Deceased)) (Civil Appeal 22 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 23127 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in law or fact when assessing damages for loss of expectation of life and loss of dependency under the Law Reform Act and Fatal Accidents Act, and whether the awarded amounts were inordinately high to warrant appellate interference.
• Who among the parties should bear the costs of the appeal and the suit following the partial success of the appeal.

Holdings

• The special damages of Kshs. 98,500 were confirmed, including Kshs. 50,000 for funeral expenses. While receipts were not provided for burial costs, the court acknowledged the necessity of such expenses and allowed the award under an exception to strict proof requirements.
• The appeal partially succeeded. The respondents were awarded Kshs. 1,919,725 in total damages (after adjusting for 15% contribution) and retained costs in the lower court, but each party bore its own appeal costs.
• The award for loss of dependency (Kshs. 3,488,700) was set aside and reduced to Kshs. 2,000,000. The trial court erred by using the multiplier approach instead of a global sum, which was more appropriate for a minor with uncertain future earnings.
• The court upheld the award of Kshs. 150,000 for loss of expectation of life, finding it reasonable given the deceased's age and precedents. The learned trial magistrate considered both parties' submissions and the award was not inordinately high.

Remedies

• Interest at court rates is awarded on general damages from the judgment date (28th September 2023) until payment, and on special damages from the date of filing suit until payment.
• The respondents are awarded costs in the lower court, while each party is to bear their own costs for the appeal as the appeal partially succeeded.
• The awards for pain and suffering (Kshs. 10,000), loss of expectation of life (Kshs. 150,000), and special damages (Kshs. 98,500) were upheld as reasonable and not contested or excessive.
• The court reduced the loss of dependency damages from Kshs. 3,488,700 to Kshs. 2,000,000 as it was deemed inordinately high and speculative. The award for loss of dependency is now Kshs. 2,000,000.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court held that the multiplier approach for assessing loss of dependency damages is inappropriate when the deceased's future earnings are speculative, and a global sum should be used instead in such cases. This aligns with prior judicial decisions emphasizing that speculative calculations should not override just outcomes.
• The court acknowledged an exception to the general rule requiring strict proof of special damages, recognizing that families may lack documentation for burial expenses due to the emotional context of loss. Compensation for such expenses is permissible without formal receipts.

Precedent Name

• Chhabhadiya Enterprise Ltd & Another v Gladys Mutenyo Bitali (Suing as the Administrator and personal representative of Linet Simiyu now deceased
• Anthony Konde Fondo & another v RMC (The Representative of FC (Deceased
• Abok James Odera T/A A.J. Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates
• Trustees Registered Mauwa Methodist Hospital v Penina Thirindi Koome
• Moses Mairua Muchiri Vs Cyrus Maina Macharia (suing as the personal representative of the estate of Mercy Nzula Maina (deceased
• Letafyro & Another v JK (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the CK (Deceased
• Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tete
• Albert Odawa v Gichimu Githinji
• Daniel Mwangi Kimeni & 2 Others v J G M & Another (the Personal Representatives of the Estate of N K
• Mercy Muriuki & Another v Samuel Mwangi Nduati & Another (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Robert Mwangi
• Palm Oil Transporters & Another v WWN
• Bashir Ahmed Butt v Ahmed Khan
• Premier Diary Limited v Amarjit Singh Sagoo & Another

Cited Statute

• Law Reform Act
• Fatal Accidents Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• ..... The multiplier approach is just a method of assessing damages. It is not a principle of law or dogma. It can, and must be abandoned where the facts do not facilitate its application. It is plain that it is a useful and practical method where factors such as age of the deceased, the amount of annual or monthly dependency, and the expected length of the dependency are known or are knowable without undue speculation. Where that is not possible, to insist on the multiplier approach would be to sacrifice justice on the altar of methodology, something a court of justice should never do
• ....We do not think that it is a breach of the general rule that special damages must be pleaded and proved, to hold that families who expend money to bury or otherwise inter their dead relatives should be compensated. In fact, we do take judicial notice that it would be wrong and unfair to expect bereaved families to be concerned with issues of record keeping when the primary concern to the bereaved family is that a close relative has died and the body needs to be interred according to the custom of the particular community involved.
• re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyze the extracts on the record and then determine whether the conclusions reached by the learned trial judge are to stand or not and give reasons either way