Automated Summary
Key Facts
Peris Wanjiru Kahiga sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 21 June 2015 between motor vehicles KAU 703E and KBJ 559F. The trial court dismissed her suit due to insufficient evidence, but the appellate court found this decision erroneous. It ruled both drivers equally liable (50:50) and awarded general damages of Kshs 1,000,000, special damages of Kshs 334,652, and future medical expenses of Kshs 100,000. Key injuries included left femur fracture, degloving leg injuries, chest trauma, and permanent incapacity (50% per one doctor, 6-7% per another).
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellants suit in its entirety;
- Whether the award on quantum of damages was inordinately low in light of the injuries sustained by the appellant;
Holdings
- The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit. It set aside the dismissal and substituted the judgment with a 50:50 liability in favor of the appellant, awarding general damages for pain and suffering at Kshs.1,000,000/=
- The court held that the trial court's award on quantum of damages was not inordinately low given the injuries sustained by the appellant. This ground of appeal was disallowed as the trial court's intended award of Kshs.1,000,000/= for general damages and Kshs.100,000/= for future medical expenses was deemed reasonable under the circumstances.
Remedies
- Appellant shall have 50% costs on the appeal
- Liability – 50:50 in favour of the appellant
- Future Medical Expenses – 100,000/=
- Special damages – Khs.334,652/=
- General damages for pain and suffering - Kshs.1,000,000/=
Monetary Damages
1434652.00
Legal Principles
- The appellate court emphasized that in civil cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's use of the latter led to an incorrect dismissal.
- The court determined the appellant would receive 50% of the appeal costs, reflecting the shared liability between the parties.
- The court found the trial court erred by dismissing the case due to the appellant not discharging her burden of proof, given conflicting evidence. It held that when evidence is inconclusive, both parties may be liable.
Precedent Name
- Thomas Ombima v Samson Anindo Mwenje
- BAKER V MARKET HARBOROUGH INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
- Elisha Akello Raga v Shajan and Holdings Limited & anor
- Michael Maina Gitonga V Serah Njuguna
- WELCH V STANDARD BANK LTD
- Francis Maina Kahura v Nahashon Wanjau Muriithi
- Paul N. Njoroge v Abdul Sabuni Sabonyo
- Fred Ogada Azere v Ezekiel Kiarie Nganga
- Hussein Omar Farah v Lento Agencies
- SIMON V CARLO
- Michael Adeka Khaemba & 2 others v Rassangyllo Muli Kumuyu
- Peace Kemuma Nyang'era v Michael Thuo & another
Judge Name
HON.A.MSHILA
Passage Text
- 40. This ground of appeal is found lacking in merit and is disallowed;
- With the above unresolved contradicting evidence between PW3 and PW4, this Court is at a loss as to whether the matatu driver was to blame for the accident in that while the plaintiff blames the matatu driver, PW4 blames motor vehicle registration number KBJ 559F.
- This court is satisfied that the trial court acted on wrong principles in dismissing the appellants suit; and finds that there are good reasons to interfere with trial court's decision on liability; this court finds that the drivers of both motor vehicles were equally to blame for the accident;