1. The Respondent commenced Keroka MCCC E223 of 2023 by a Plaint dated 08th December 2023 seeking general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, special damages of KES.17,654, costs of the suit and interest arising from a road traffic accident which occurred on 04th September 2023. She pleaded that on 4th September 2023, while lawfully travelling as a fare-paying passenger aboard motor vehicle registration number KCZ 013J along the Sotik–Keroka Road, the Appellant's driver negligently drove the motor vehicle, causing it to veer off the road and overturn, as a result of which she sustained bodily injuries.
2. The Appellant Statement of Defence dated 20th December 2023 denying each and every allegation contained in the Plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
3. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned magistrate delivered judgment on 03rd December 2025, entered judgment on liability in favour of the Respondent and awarded general damages of KES.600,000 together with special damages as proved, costs and interest.
4. Aggrieved by the award on quantum, the Appellant lodged the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29th December 2025 seeking to have the award of general damages set aside and reassessed.
5. In written submissions dated 25th February 2026, Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates for the Appellant submit that the appeal turns solely on quantum. Counsel argues that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence, particularly Dr. Malik's report, which concluded that the Respondent sustained only soft tissue injuries without fractures or shoulder dislocation. It is further submitted that the award of KES.600,000 was manifestly excessive and should be substituted with an award not exceeding KES.250,000.
6. In written submissions dated 17th March 2026, Ochoki & Company Advocates for the Respondent oppose the appeal, submitting that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and correctly preferred the contemporaneous treatment records and the medical report of Dr. Peter Morebu Momanyi over Dr. Malik's subsequent opinion. Counsel maintains that the award of Kshs.600,000/= was fair and reasonable in light of the injuries proved and urges the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs.
7. This being a first appeal, the Court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the entire evidence on record and draw its own independent conclusions while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. That duty was articulated in Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424 and reaffirmed in Mursal & another v Manese (suing as the legal administrator of Dalphine Kanini Manesa) [2022] KEHC 282 (KLR) where it was emphasized that a first appeal is by way of a retrial on the record and that the appellate court must undertake a fresh and independent evaluation of all the evidence before determining whether the conclusions reached by the trial court ought to stand.
8. The appeal challenges only the award of general damages. The principles governing appellate interference with an award of damages are well settled. In Moses Maina Waweru v Esther Wanjiru Githae (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late David Githae Kiririo Taiti [2022] KEHC 1330 (KLR), James Mutungi v David Muasya Ndeleva [2015] KEHC 1037 (KLR) and Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service, Gathogo Kanini v. A.M. Lubia & Another [1987] KLR 30,, the courts held that an appellate court will interfere with an award of damages only where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, misapprehended the evidence, took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant factor or where the award is so inordinately high or low as to represent an erroneous estimate of the damage suffered.
9. In assessing damages, the court must strive to award fair compensation while maintaining consistency so that, as far as practicable, comparable injuries attract comparable awards. That principle was affirmed in West (H) & Son Ltd v Shepherd [1964] AC 326, Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1979] 1 All ER 332, Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR and Telkom Orange Kenya Limited v I S O minor suing through his next friend and mother J N [2018] KEHC 1915 (KLR) while recognising that each case must ultimately be determined on its own facts and the injuries proved.
10. The Appellant also relied on Joseph Karobia Gicheru v Michael Gachoki Gicheru [2011] KECA 165 (KLR) for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and that a court should determine a dispute only on the issues pleaded and proved.
11. The issue for determination is whether the award of KES.600,000 in general damages warrants interference. The Appellant contends that the learned trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the report of Dr. Malik dated 19th June 2024, while the Respondent maintains that the trial court properly relied on the Keroka Sub-County Hospital treatment notes, the P3 Form, the radiology report and the medical report of Dr. Peter Morebu Momanyi dated 25th November 2023.
12. Upon independently reviewing the record, I find that the injuries to be considered are those disclosed in the Keroka Sub-County Hospital treatment notes, the P3 Form and the radiology report prepared during treatment. Those records documented a deformity of the left shoulder, an impression of a pelvic fracture, lacerations to the upper and lower limbs, blunt trauma and blood loss. The subsequent reports prepared by Dr. Peter Morebu Momanyi and Dr. Malik assist the Court in evaluating those injuries but cannot alter the injuries recorded in the primary medical records.
13. The Appellant relied on Mara Tea Factory Limited v Lillian Bosibori Nyandika [2021] KEHC 871 (KLR) where the Court reduced an award from KES.400,000 to KES.300,000 for a head injury, dislocation of the left shoulder joint, dislocation of the left wrist joint and a deep cut wound on the head, after finding that the trial court had assessed damages on injuries that were not borne out by the medical evidence. The Court held that damages must be assessed on the basis of the injuries established by the evidence.
14. The Respondent first relied on Veronicah Mkanjala Mnyapara v Charles Kinanga Babu [2020] KEHC 7871 (KLR) where the Court upheld an award of KES.300,000 for dislocations of the left wrist and left ankle joints, a deep cut wound on the forehead, a chest contusion, and bruises to the face, both hands and both ankle joints, finding that the injuries were more severe than ordinary soft tissue injuries as they involved multiple joint dislocations in addition to soft tissue trauma.
15. 15. The Respondent also relied on Patrick Kinoti Miguna v Peter Mburunga G. Muthamia [2014] KEHC 6270 (KLR) where the Court upheld an award of KES.300,000 for a shoulder dislocation, two loose lower incisors, a cut wound on the left leg, bruises to the head, leg and hand, and post-traumatic arthritis of the shoulder resulting in restricted movement, finding that the award was commensurate with the injuries proved and disclosed no basis for appellate interference.
16. The injuries proved in the present appeal were more extensive than those in Mara Tea Factory Limited, where the claimant sustained a head injury, dislocations of the left shoulder and left wrist joints and a deep cut wound on the head. They were also more serious than those in Patrick Kinoti Miguna, which involved a shoulder dislocation, loose incisors, bruises and a cut wound notwithstanding the residual post-traumatic arthritis. While the injuries in Veronicah Mkanjala Mnyapara involved multiple joint dislocations together with soft tissue injuries, the Respondent herein additionally sustained pelvic trauma, blunt trauma and blood loss. Taking into account those injuries, together with the passage of time since those decisions, I am satisfied that the award of KES.600,000 falls within the range of reasonable awards for injuries of comparable gravity and does not warrant appellate interference.
17. In the result, I find that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any error of principle or that the award of KES.600,000 was so inordinately high as to warrant interference by this Court. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed. The judgment delivered on 03rd December 2025 in Keroka MCCC E223 of 2023 is hereby upheld. As costs follow the event, the Respondent shall have the costs of this appeal.
2. The Appellant Statement of Defence dated 20th December 2023 denying each and every allegation contained in the Plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
3. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned magistrate delivered judgment on 03rd December 2025, entered judgment on liability in favour of the Respondent and awarded general damages of KES.600,000 together with special damages as proved, costs and interest.
4. Aggrieved by the award on quantum, the Appellant lodged the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29th December 2025 seeking to have the award of general damages set aside and reassessed.
5. In written submissions dated 25th February 2026, Mukite Musangi & Company Advocates for the Appellant submit that the appeal turns solely on quantum. Counsel argues that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence, particularly Dr. Malik's report, which concluded that the Respondent sustained only soft tissue injuries without fractures or shoulder dislocation. It is further submitted that the award of KES.600,000 was manifestly excessive and should be substituted with an award not exceeding KES.250,000.
6. In written submissions dated 17th March 2026, Ochoki & Company Advocates for the Respondent oppose the appeal, submitting that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and correctly preferred the contemporaneous treatment records and the medical report of Dr. Peter Morebu Momanyi over Dr. Malik's subsequent opinion. Counsel maintains that the award of Kshs.600,000/= was fair and reasonable in light of the injuries proved and urges the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs.
7. This being a first appeal, the Court is under a duty to reconsider and re-evaluate the entire evidence on record and draw its own independent conclusions while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. That duty was articulated in Peters v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424 and reaffirmed in Mursal & another v Manese (suing as the legal administrator of Dalphine Kanini Manesa) [2022] KEHC 282 (KLR) where it was emphasized that a first appeal is by way of a retrial on the record and that the appellate court must undertake a fresh and independent evaluation of all the evidence before determining whether the conclusions reached by the trial court ought to stand.
8. The appeal challenges only the award of general damages. The principles governing appellate interference with an award of damages are well settled. In Moses Maina Waweru v Esther Wanjiru Githae (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late David Githae Kiririo Taiti [2022] KEHC 1330 (KLR), James Mutungi v David Muasya Ndeleva [2015] KEHC 1037 (KLR) and Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service, Gathogo Kanini v. A.M. Lubia & Another [1987] KLR 30,, the courts held that an appellate court will interfere with an award of damages only where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, misapprehended the evidence, took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant factor or where the award is so inordinately high or low as to represent an erroneous estimate of the damage suffered.
9. In assessing damages, the court must strive to award fair compensation while maintaining consistency so that, as far as practicable, comparable injuries attract comparable awards. That principle was affirmed in West (H) & Son Ltd v Shepherd [1964] AC 326, Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1979] 1 All ER 332, Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR and Telkom Orange Kenya Limited v I S O minor suing through his next friend and mother J N [2018] KEHC 1915 (KLR) while recognising that each case must ultimately be determined on its own facts and the injuries proved.
10. The Appellant also relied on Joseph Karobia Gicheru v Michael Gachoki Gicheru [2011] KECA 165 (KLR) for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and that a court should determine a dispute only on the issues pleaded and proved.
11. The issue for determination is whether the award of KES.600,000 in general damages warrants interference. The Appellant contends that the learned trial magistrate failed to properly evaluate the report of Dr. Malik dated 19th June 2024, while the Respondent maintains that the trial court properly relied on the Keroka Sub-County Hospital treatment notes, the P3 Form, the radiology report and the medical report of Dr. Peter Morebu Momanyi dated 25th November 2023.
12. Upon independently reviewing the record, I find that the injuries to be considered are those disclosed in the Keroka Sub-County Hospital treatment notes, the P3 Form and the radiology report prepared during treatment. Those records documented a deformity of the left shoulder, an impression of a pelvic fracture, lacerations to the upper and lower limbs, blunt trauma and blood loss. The subsequent reports prepared by Dr. Peter Morebu Momanyi and Dr. Malik assist the Court in evaluating those injuries but cannot alter the injuries recorded in the primary medical records.
13. The Appellant relied on Mara Tea Factory Limited v Lillian Bosibori Nyandika [2021] KEHC 871 (KLR) where the Court reduced an award from KES.400,000 to KES.300,000 for a head injury, dislocation of the left shoulder joint, dislocation of the left wrist joint and a deep cut wound on the head, after finding that the trial court had assessed damages on injuries that were not borne out by the medical evidence. The Court held that damages must be assessed on the basis of the injuries established by the evidence.
14. The Respondent first relied on Veronicah Mkanjala Mnyapara v Charles Kinanga Babu [2020] KEHC 7871 (KLR) where the Court upheld an award of KES.300,000 for dislocations of the left wrist and left ankle joints, a deep cut wound on the forehead, a chest contusion, and bruises to the face, both hands and both ankle joints, finding that the injuries were more severe than ordinary soft tissue injuries as they involved multiple joint dislocations in addition to soft tissue trauma.
15. 15. The Respondent also relied on Patrick Kinoti Miguna v Peter Mburunga G. Muthamia [2014] KEHC 6270 (KLR) where the Court upheld an award of KES.300,000 for a shoulder dislocation, two loose lower incisors, a cut wound on the left leg, bruises to the head, leg and hand, and post-traumatic arthritis of the shoulder resulting in restricted movement, finding that the award was commensurate with the injuries proved and disclosed no basis for appellate interference.
16. The injuries proved in the present appeal were more extensive than those in Mara Tea Factory Limited, where the claimant sustained a head injury, dislocations of the left shoulder and left wrist joints and a deep cut wound on the head. They were also more serious than those in Patrick Kinoti Miguna, which involved a shoulder dislocation, loose incisors, bruises and a cut wound notwithstanding the residual post-traumatic arthritis. While the injuries in Veronicah Mkanjala Mnyapara involved multiple joint dislocations together with soft tissue injuries, the Respondent herein additionally sustained pelvic trauma, blunt trauma and blood loss. Taking into account those injuries, together with the passage of time since those decisions, I am satisfied that the award of KES.600,000 falls within the range of reasonable awards for injuries of comparable gravity and does not warrant appellate interference.
17. In the result, I find that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any error of principle or that the award of KES.600,000 was so inordinately high as to warrant interference by this Court. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed. The judgment delivered on 03rd December 2025 in Keroka MCCC E223 of 2023 is hereby upheld. As costs follow the event, the Respondent shall have the costs of this appeal.