Automated Summary
Key Facts
Damaris Wanjiku Maina sustained soft tissue injuries in a December 2017 road accident caused by Peter Maina Ndungu's alleged negligence. The trial court awarded her Kshs 250,000 in general damages and Kshs 12,000 in special damages, apportioning liability 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant. The appellate court found the general damages inordinately high, reducing them to Kshs 150,000 while upholding the liability ratio and special damages. Both parties bear their own appeal costs.
Issues
The court considered whether the trial court's award of Kshs 250,000 in general damages was inordinately high given the respondent's soft tissue injuries, referencing legal principles from cases like Butt v Khan and Gitobu Imanyara, which state that appellate courts may only interfere with damage assessments if they are based on wrong principles or represent an entirely erroneous estimate.
Holdings
- This court finds the appeal to be partially merited and it is hereby allowed.
- The Judgment of the Hon IF Koome is set aside and substituted with the following: liability apportioned at 60:40 is upheld.
- Kshs 12,000/= for Special Damages is upheld. Sub-total Kshs 162,000/- less 40% contribution = Kshs 97,200/-.
- Each party shall bear their own costs on this appeal.
- The award for general damages is set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs 150,000/-.
- The Respondent shall have costs in the lower court and interest at court rates.
Remedies
- The liability ratio of 60:40 in favor of the respondent is upheld, maintaining the original allocation of responsibility.
- The award for general damages is set aside and substituted with Kshs 150,000, deemed more appropriate for the sustained soft tissue injuries.
- The award for special damages (Kshs 12,000) is upheld, with a sub-total of Kshs 162,000 reduced by 40% to Kshs 97,200.
- The court finds the appeal to be partially merited and allows it, setting aside and substituting parts of the trial court's judgment.
- The respondent is granted costs in the lower court, with interest at court rates, but each party bears their own appeal costs.
Monetary Damages
162000.00
Legal Principles
The appellate court may interfere with a trial court's damage award only if it was based on wrong principles, misapprehended evidence, or resulted in an inordinately high/low figure. This principle was cited in cases like Butt v Khan and Gitobu Imanyara v Attorney General, emphasizing the need for clear justification to overturn a trial judge's discretion.
Precedent Name
- Maimuna Kilungwa Vs Motrex Transporters Ltd
- Jyoti Structures Limited & Another V Truphena Chepkoech Too & Another
- John Wambua V Mathew Makau Mwololo & Another
- Ndungu Dennis & Ann Wangari Ndirangu & Another
- Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others V Attorney General
- Butt v Khan
- Selle & another vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & others
- Kemfro Africa Limited T/a 'meru Express Services (1976)' Another Vs Lubia & Another (No 2)
Judge Name
A. Mshila
Passage Text
- Having been persuaded by the above authorities, this Court is inclined to interfere with the award of Kshs 250,000/= as assessed by the trial court as the Respondent is found to have sustained softtissue injuries which have healed well. In the circumstances and bearing in mind comparable awards for comparable injuries, this court is satisfied that the award of Kshs 250,000/= is inordinately high.
- The appellate court has jurisdiction to only interfere with the assessment of damages by a trial court if it is demonstrated that the trial court:- a. Took into account an irrelevant factor or b. Left out of account a relevant factor or, c. The award is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage - (see the case Kemfro Africa Limited T/a "meru Express Services (1976)" Another Vs Lubia & Another (No 2) [1985] eKLR).