Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves an appeal against a trial court's award of Kshs 60,000 in general damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a 2017 car accident. The plaintiff alleged the defendant caused the accident through speeding and reckless driving, resulting in chest injuries and a rib fracture. The trial court found the defendant 100% liable but awarded damages based on a finding of soft tissue injuries after no x-ray evidence of a fracture was produced. The appellant argued the damages were inordinately low compared to similar cases, while the respondent maintained the evidence did not support the fracture claim. The appellate court upheld the original award, finding the injuries were minor and the trial court's assessment reasonable under the circumstances.
Issues
The court examined the adequacy of the Kshs 60,000 general damages awarded by the trial magistrate, considering whether the injuries (claimed as rib fracture and chest pain) were sufficiently proven and whether the quantum was disproportionate to comparable cases. The appellate court found the trial court's assessment of soft tissue injuries was reasonable and upheld the award.
Holdings
- The court dismissed the appeal as lacking merit, upholding the trial magistrate's award of Kshs 60,000 in general damages and costs, concluding the trial court did not misapprehend the evidence or apply incorrect principles in assessing damages.
- The court found that no evidence was led to prove a fracture occurred, as the X-ray films were not produced, and thus agreed with the trial magistrate's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove a fracture on a balance of probabilities.
- The court determined that the injuries sustained by the appellant were minor soft tissue injuries, aligning with the trial magistrate's assessment and noting that the injuries were less severe than those in the cited cases referenced by the appellant.
Remedies
The court dismissed the appeal with costs, finding no merit in the appellant's claims and upholding the trial magistrate's decision regarding the quantum of damages.
Monetary Damages
60000.00
Legal Principles
- An appellate court may only interfere with a trial court's damage award if it was based on a wrong principle or misapprehension of evidence. The court cited cases like Catholic Diocese of Kisumu vs Sophia Achieng Tete and H West & Son Ltd vs Shepherd to affirm this principle, concluding the trial magistrate's award was not inordinately low.
- The standard of proof required was a balance of probabilities. The court found the appellant failed to meet this standard, as no evidence (e.g., x-ray films) was produced to confirm the fracture claim.
- The burden of proof lies on the person who alleges the claim, as stipulated by section 107 of the Evidence Act. In this case, the burden was on the appellant to prove that she suffered a fracture, not merely allege it.
Precedent Name
- H Young & Company EA Ltd Vs Edward Yumatsi
- Daniel Otieno Owino vs Elizabeth Atieno Owuor
- Pitalis Opiyo Ager vs Daniel Otieno Owino & Anor
- Ogembo Tea Factory vs George Biringi Oino
- Joseph Mwangi Kiarie & another vs Isaac Otieno Otieno
- H West & Son Ltd vs Shepherd
- Sheikh Mustaq Hassan vs Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters & 5 Others
- Dhiraj Manji vs Tyson Ouma
- HB (Minor suing through mother & next friend DKM) v Jasper Nchonga Magari & another
Cited Statute
Evidence Act
Judge Name
T. A. Odera
Passage Text
- "It is trite law that the assessment of general damages is at the discretion of the trial court and an appellate court is not justified in substituting a figure of its own for that awarded by the court below simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at first instance. The appellate court can justifiably interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court only if it is satisfied that the trial court applied the wrong principles, (as by taking into account some irrelevant factor leaving out of account some relevant one) or misapprehended the evidence and so arrived at a figure so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate."
- The upshot is that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
- In the Ogembo case, the respondent had suffered blunt trauma to the chest together with a contusion of the knee and the left hip and was awarded Kshs 200,000/=-.