[1] The appellants, Flying Japan Limited and David Kihara , were sued before the lower court in Kapsabet Senior Principal Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 123 of 2022: Jecinta Nyangweso Wakonga Shimoli alias Jesynda Nyangweso Wekonga Shimoli v Flying Japan Limited and David Kihara for compensation in respect a road traffic accident that occurred on 4 th June, 2022 involving motor vehicle registration number KDG 483 S and motor cycle registration number KMFU 254T. The 1 st respondent averred that she was a lawful passenger aboard motor vehicle registration number KDG 483 S when, the said motor vehicle was involved in an accident.
[2] The respondent further averred that as a consequence thereof, she sustained bodily injuries as set out in paragraph 7 of her Plaint dated 20 th July 2022. She alleged negligence on the part of the 2 nd appellant who was then in control of the subject motor vehicle and supplied particulars of negligence at paragraph 5 of the Plaint.
[3] The appellants entered appearance and filed their Statement of Defence dated 29 th August, 2022. They denied all material allegations pleaded against them and put the respondents to strict proof. They further averred that if at all any accident occurred then the same was caused by the negligence of the respondent. They likewise set out the particulars of negligence of the respondent as alleged by them at paragraph 8 of their Defence. Accordingly, the appellants prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.
[4] Upon hearing the parties, the learned magistrate attributed liability at 100% as against the appellants and assessed general damages at Kshs. 300,000/=. He also awarded the respondent Kshs. 6,700/= by way of special damages.
[5] Being aggrieved by the decision of the lower court on quantum, the appellant filed this appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29 th January 2024. They raised the following four grounds:
[a] THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the appellants' written submissions and legal authorities and/or precedents on quantum thereby arriving at a determination which is wholly erroneous in law.
[b] THAT the learned trial magistrate misdirected himself by failing to take into account the well-established principle requiring comparable awards to be made for comparable injuries sustained thereby falling into an error by awarding Kshs. 300,000/= which award is manifestly excessive.
[c] THAT the sum of Kshs, 300,000/= as general damages is excessive in view of the injuries sustained by the respondent and is a deviation from the principle of stare decisis requiring that comparable awards be made for comparable injuries sustained.
[d] THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider conventional awards for general damages in cases of similar injuries and awarded general damages for pain and suffering at Kshs. 300, 000/= which is very high, all circumstances and injuries considered.
[6] In the premises, the appellants prayed that their appeal be allowed and that the judgment delivered by the lower court on 18 th January, 2024 in favour of the respondent be set aside and be substituted with the judgment of this Court re-assessing quantum downwards. They also prayed for costs of the appeal.
[7] The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions; to which end, the appellant filed written submissions dated 8 th May 2026. Wherein they framed two issues for determination:
[a] Whether the award of Kshs. 300, 000/- as general damages was erroneous/excessive.
[b] What order ought to issue on costs.
[8] The appellants submitted that the principles governing the award of damages are well settled. They made reference to Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Services & another v Lubia and another (No. 2) [1985] eKLR and submitted that an appellate court may interfere with an award where it is inordinately high or low or where the trial court took into account irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant ones. They also relied on Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR in which the Court of Appeal emphasized that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards.
[9] The appellants also submitted that the respondent’s injuries, being soft tissue in nature, did not warrant or justify such a high award of damages. In their view, no evidence of severe or permanent incapacity was adduced to warrant a departure from the range of awards established by recent authorities. They also contended that the trial court did not cite any authorities to justify the award of Kshs 300,000/= as general damages. They accordingly urged the Court to review the award downwards as guided by the following cited authorities:
[a] Rege v L A (minor suing through her father and next friend G A A) (Civil Appeal E111 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16634 (KLR) where an award of Kshs. 400,000/= was substituted with an award of Kshs. 80,000/= for injuries that included bruises on the right hand; blunt trauma to the right hand and chest contusion.
[b] Manase & another v Muga (Civil Appeal E040 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 10487 (KLR) (28 July 2022) (Judgment) where an award of Kshs. 200,000/= was substituted with an award of Kshs. 100,000/= as general damages for cut wound on the forehead, tenderness of the neck, tenderness of the chest, tenderness on the back, tenderness of the left elbow and left hand and bruises on both knees.
[c] Edward Mutevu Maithya & another v Edwin Nyamweya [2022] eKLR where an award of Kshs. 550,000/= was reduced to Kshs. 100,000/= for cut wounds on the scalp, bruises to the back, right upper limb and the left lower limb.
[d] L N K (a minor suing through C N K as next friend) & 2 others v Simon Gatuni Njukia [2022] eKLR where an award of Kshs. 200,000/= was substituted with an award of Kshs. 80,000/= for soft tissue injuries in the temporal and parietal region, soft tissue injuries to the right shoulder region joint, soft tissue injuries to the chest and soft tissue injuries of the lower limbs.
[e] Losagi Insurance Brokers Limited & another v Josephat Achesa Chumbali [2022] eKLR in which an award of Kshs. 95, 000/= was made for multiple soft tissue injuries wherein the claimant therein suffered multiple soft tissue injures similar to the ones sustained by the respondent herein.
[f] Kenya Nut Company Ltd vs Samuel Maina Muya [2021] eKLR) where the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and was awarded Kshs. 130,000/= by the lower court. The award was reduced on appeal to Kshs 80,000/=.
[g] Francis Omari Ogaro v J A O (minor suing through next friend and father G O D [2021] eKLR in which the court substituted an award of Kshs. 230,000/= with an award of Kshs. 180, 000/= where the Plaintiff sustained multiple cut wounds on the right lower limb, bruises on the right lower limb, bruises on both elbows, bruises on the right iliac region, Bruises on the frontal region, Bruises on the temporal region, lacerations on the frontal region, cut wounds on the left iliac region, cut wounds on the frontal region, cut wounds on the temporal region, blunt trauma to the abdomen.
[10] On the basis of the aforementioned decisions, the appellants submitted that an award in the range of Kshs. 60,000/= to Kshs. 70,000/= would be fair, reasonable and consistent with current jurisprudence. In their view any higher award would be excessive and contrary to the principle that similar awards be made for comparable injuries.
[11] On her part, the respondent filed written submissions dated 12 th March 2025 through the firm of M/s Mwinamo Lugonzo & Company Advocates. On the role of the appellate court, the respondent cited the decision in of Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd [1968] E A 123 and invited the Court to re-evaluate the evidence of the lower court and uphold the decision of the learned magistrate on liability. She urged the Court to find that the accident occurred as a matter of fact; and that she was injured in the said accident.
[12] The respondent further urged the Court to note that the appellants did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal; and that the 2 nd appellant was charged, found guilty and convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. She relied on Section 47 of the Evidence Act and urged the Court not to disturb the decision of the lower court on liability.
[13] On quantum of damages, the respondent relied on the following persuasive authorities to convince the Court that the sum awarded by the lower court was well within the current range of awards for comparable injuries:
[a] Nyeri HCCC No. 320 of 1998: Catherine W. Kingori v Gibson T. Gichubi where Kshs. 350,000/= was awarded in general damages for multiple soft tissue injuries on the left elbow joint and injuries on both ankles.
[b] Nairobi HCCA No. 791 OF 1999: Martin M. Mugi v Attorney General where an award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made in general damages for a deep extensive cut on the face, mild concussion and generalized soft tissue injuries.
[c] Eldoret HCCA No. 32 of 2017: Jyoti Structures Limited & another v Charles Ogada Ochola where an award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made as general damages for blunt injury to the neck, head, chest and right shoulder.
[d] Eldoret HCCA No. 51A of 2018: Edson Convertors & Anor v Robert Khaemba Khamala where an award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made as general damages for blunt injury to the chest, blunt injury to the abdomen and blunt injury to both lower limbs.
[14] On the basis of the above authorities, the respondent urged the Court to find that the award by the lower court was reasonable, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries she sustained.
[15] This being a first appeal, it is the duty of the Court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower court and come to its own conclusions thereon while bearing in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses. In Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123 it was held that:
"...this court is not bound necessarily to accept the findings of fact by the court below. An appeal to this court ... is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this court acts in such an appeal are well settled. Briefly put they are that this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect..."
[16] Before the lower court, the respondent testified as PW1. She adopted her witness statement dated 20 th July 2022 as part of her evidence in chief. Her evidence was that on the 4 th June 2023, she was traveling from Eldoret to Shame aboard Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDG 483 S Matatu when the said motor vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident. She explained that the motor vehicle hit a motorcycle on the right lane facing Chavakali direction, which was the correct lane for the oncoming motorcycle. The motor vehicle veered off the road and hit a building on the right side of the road.
[17] It was also the evidence of PW1 that the motor vehicle was being driven at such a high speed that the passengers had to intervene by asking the driver to reduce his speed but he ignored their pleas. She added that she sustained bodily injuries on the fingers, back chest and right leg, for which she was taken to hospital for treatment. She was thereafter examined by Dr. Sokobe and a report prepared which she produced as one of her exhibits before the lower court.
[18] By consent of the aprties, the evidence adduced by the police officer in Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 136 of 2022 was adopted as the respondent’s evidence in the lower court suit. From the Judgment rendered by the lower court dated 18 th January 2024, it is evident that the traffic police officer confirmed that in CMCC No 136 of 2022 that the accident occurred as a matter of fact, and that the respondent herein was one of the people who were injured. It is also evident that, according to the evidence of the traffic police officer, the driver of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDG 483 S was to blame for the accident for, inter alia, overtaking when it was not safe to do so, thereby colliding head-on with an oncoming motorcycle.
[19] The Record of Appeal shows, at page 7, that although the appellants were granted time to avail witnesses, they were unable to and had to close their case without adducing any rebuttal evidence. I therefore have no hesitation in holding that, on the basis of the evidence presented by the respondent, the learned magistrate cannot be faulted for fixing liability at 100% against the appellants. Indeed, the four grounds of appeal all show that the appeal is about quantum as opposed to liability. Consequently, the only issue for consideration is whether the lower court’s award of Kshs. 300, 000/= as general damages is erroneous in the circumstances.
[20] In H. West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326, it was acknowledged that:
"...In a sphere in which no one can predicate with complete assurance that the award made by another is wrong the best that can be done is to pay regard to the range of limits of current thought. In a case such as the present it is natural and reasonable for any member of an appellate tribunal to pose for himself the question as to what award he himself would have made. Having done so, and remembering that in this sphere there are inevitably differences of view and of opinion, he does not however proceed to dismiss as wrong a figure of an award merely because it does not correspond with the figure of his own assessment."
[21] The Court of Appeal restated this principle in Hellen Waruguru Waweru (Suing as the legal representative of Peter Waweru Mwenja v Kiarie Shoe Stores Limited [2015] eKLR as follows:
"As a general principle, assessment of damages lies in the discretion of the trial court and an appellate Court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the Judge proceeded on wrong principles or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low. The Court must be satisfied that either the Judge, in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one or that; short of this, the amount is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages."
[22] Therefore, as far as possible, comparable injuries ought to attract the same award for purposes of uniformity and predictability. The Court of Appeal made this point in Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR, and held:
“…we must consider the award of damages in the light of the injuries sustained. It has been stated now and again that in assessment of damages, the general approach should be that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards keeping in mind the correct level of awards in similar cases.”
[23] In this instance, the respondent pleaded the following injuries in his Plaint:
[a] Multiple cut wounds on the baccal cavity
[b] Blunt injury to the chest
[c] Blunt injury to the lower back
[d] Bruises on the both upper limbs
[e] Blunt injury to the right lower limb
[24] I have perused the report prepared by Dr. Sokobe dated 4 th July 2022. It confirms that Dr. Sokobe examined the respondent and noted the respondent had been injured in a road traffic accident as alleged and had sustained multiple cut wounds on the buccal cavity, blunt injuries to the chest, lower back and right lower limb, as well as bruises on the upper limbs. He confirmed that the respondent still had some pain on the chest and back and had healed wounds on the buccal cavity and both upper limbs.
[25] The respondent also produced a treatment document from Jayo Medical Clinic dated 4 th June 2022. It confirms that the respondent was attended to at the facility following a road traffic accident before being referred to Kapasabet County Hospital for further management.
[26] It is manifest therefore that the respondent proved her injuries. I have given due consideration to the authorities relied on by learned counsel and note that all the decisions relied on by the appellants were made in 2021 and 2022. The court is under obligation to take into account the age of the authorities and the effect of inflation on the Kenya Shilling, among other things, when determining the issue of quantum. On the other hand, the authority relied on by the respondent involved much more serious injuries.
[27] Granted the circumstances of this case, I find the following authorities to be more comparable:
[a] Kapsabet High Court Civil Appeal No. E050 of 2024: Classic Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited and another v Geoffrey Kibet Koech in which the respondent sustained bruises on the head, blunt injury to the neck, blunt injury to the chest, blunt injury to the right leg with bruises, and blunt injury to the mouth with loosening of the teeth. The Court reduced the award on appeal to Kshs. 200,000/= on 9 th July 2026.
[a] Surian Enterprises Ltd v Mary Bahati Peter (Civil Appeal No. E199 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 20426 (KLR) (5 July 2023) (Judgment) an award of Kshs. 300,000/= for soft tissue injuries, including deep cut on the forehead and blunt injury to the right knee, was considered inordinately high. Consequently, the award was reduced to Kshs. 150,000/=.
[28] Guided by the aforesaid authorities I am of the considered view that while the sum proposed by the appellants are on the lower side, an award of Kshs. 200,000/= would suffice in the circumstances. There was no dispute as to the special damages component. Accordingly, the appeal on quantum is allowed and orders given as hereunder:
[a] The judgment of the lower court is hereby set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 200,000/= for general damages.
[b] The special damages of Kshs. 6,700/= remains undisturbed together with interest and costs.
[c] Each party to bear own costs of the appeal.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY 2026
[2] The respondent further averred that as a consequence thereof, she sustained bodily injuries as set out in paragraph 7 of her Plaint dated 20 th July 2022. She alleged negligence on the part of the 2 nd appellant who was then in control of the subject motor vehicle and supplied particulars of negligence at paragraph 5 of the Plaint.
[3] The appellants entered appearance and filed their Statement of Defence dated 29 th August, 2022. They denied all material allegations pleaded against them and put the respondents to strict proof. They further averred that if at all any accident occurred then the same was caused by the negligence of the respondent. They likewise set out the particulars of negligence of the respondent as alleged by them at paragraph 8 of their Defence. Accordingly, the appellants prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.
[4] Upon hearing the parties, the learned magistrate attributed liability at 100% as against the appellants and assessed general damages at Kshs. 300,000/=. He also awarded the respondent Kshs. 6,700/= by way of special damages.
[5] Being aggrieved by the decision of the lower court on quantum, the appellant filed this appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29 th January 2024. They raised the following four grounds:
[a] THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the appellants' written submissions and legal authorities and/or precedents on quantum thereby arriving at a determination which is wholly erroneous in law.
[b] THAT the learned trial magistrate misdirected himself by failing to take into account the well-established principle requiring comparable awards to be made for comparable injuries sustained thereby falling into an error by awarding Kshs. 300,000/= which award is manifestly excessive.
[c] THAT the sum of Kshs, 300,000/= as general damages is excessive in view of the injuries sustained by the respondent and is a deviation from the principle of stare decisis requiring that comparable awards be made for comparable injuries sustained.
[d] THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider conventional awards for general damages in cases of similar injuries and awarded general damages for pain and suffering at Kshs. 300, 000/= which is very high, all circumstances and injuries considered.
[6] In the premises, the appellants prayed that their appeal be allowed and that the judgment delivered by the lower court on 18 th January, 2024 in favour of the respondent be set aside and be substituted with the judgment of this Court re-assessing quantum downwards. They also prayed for costs of the appeal.
[7] The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions; to which end, the appellant filed written submissions dated 8 th May 2026. Wherein they framed two issues for determination:
[a] Whether the award of Kshs. 300, 000/- as general damages was erroneous/excessive.
[b] What order ought to issue on costs.
[8] The appellants submitted that the principles governing the award of damages are well settled. They made reference to Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Services & another v Lubia and another (No. 2) [1985] eKLR and submitted that an appellate court may interfere with an award where it is inordinately high or low or where the trial court took into account irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant ones. They also relied on Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR in which the Court of Appeal emphasized that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards.
[9] The appellants also submitted that the respondent’s injuries, being soft tissue in nature, did not warrant or justify such a high award of damages. In their view, no evidence of severe or permanent incapacity was adduced to warrant a departure from the range of awards established by recent authorities. They also contended that the trial court did not cite any authorities to justify the award of Kshs 300,000/= as general damages. They accordingly urged the Court to review the award downwards as guided by the following cited authorities:
[a] Rege v L A (minor suing through her father and next friend G A A) (Civil Appeal E111 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16634 (KLR) where an award of Kshs. 400,000/= was substituted with an award of Kshs. 80,000/= for injuries that included bruises on the right hand; blunt trauma to the right hand and chest contusion.
[b] Manase & another v Muga (Civil Appeal E040 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 10487 (KLR) (28 July 2022) (Judgment) where an award of Kshs. 200,000/= was substituted with an award of Kshs. 100,000/= as general damages for cut wound on the forehead, tenderness of the neck, tenderness of the chest, tenderness on the back, tenderness of the left elbow and left hand and bruises on both knees.
[c] Edward Mutevu Maithya & another v Edwin Nyamweya [2022] eKLR where an award of Kshs. 550,000/= was reduced to Kshs. 100,000/= for cut wounds on the scalp, bruises to the back, right upper limb and the left lower limb.
[d] L N K (a minor suing through C N K as next friend) & 2 others v Simon Gatuni Njukia [2022] eKLR where an award of Kshs. 200,000/= was substituted with an award of Kshs. 80,000/= for soft tissue injuries in the temporal and parietal region, soft tissue injuries to the right shoulder region joint, soft tissue injuries to the chest and soft tissue injuries of the lower limbs.
[e] Losagi Insurance Brokers Limited & another v Josephat Achesa Chumbali [2022] eKLR in which an award of Kshs. 95, 000/= was made for multiple soft tissue injuries wherein the claimant therein suffered multiple soft tissue injures similar to the ones sustained by the respondent herein.
[f] Kenya Nut Company Ltd vs Samuel Maina Muya [2021] eKLR) where the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and was awarded Kshs. 130,000/= by the lower court. The award was reduced on appeal to Kshs 80,000/=.
[g] Francis Omari Ogaro v J A O (minor suing through next friend and father G O D [2021] eKLR in which the court substituted an award of Kshs. 230,000/= with an award of Kshs. 180, 000/= where the Plaintiff sustained multiple cut wounds on the right lower limb, bruises on the right lower limb, bruises on both elbows, bruises on the right iliac region, Bruises on the frontal region, Bruises on the temporal region, lacerations on the frontal region, cut wounds on the left iliac region, cut wounds on the frontal region, cut wounds on the temporal region, blunt trauma to the abdomen.
[10] On the basis of the aforementioned decisions, the appellants submitted that an award in the range of Kshs. 60,000/= to Kshs. 70,000/= would be fair, reasonable and consistent with current jurisprudence. In their view any higher award would be excessive and contrary to the principle that similar awards be made for comparable injuries.
[11] On her part, the respondent filed written submissions dated 12 th March 2025 through the firm of M/s Mwinamo Lugonzo & Company Advocates. On the role of the appellate court, the respondent cited the decision in of Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd [1968] E A 123 and invited the Court to re-evaluate the evidence of the lower court and uphold the decision of the learned magistrate on liability. She urged the Court to find that the accident occurred as a matter of fact; and that she was injured in the said accident.
[12] The respondent further urged the Court to note that the appellants did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal; and that the 2 nd appellant was charged, found guilty and convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. She relied on Section 47 of the Evidence Act and urged the Court not to disturb the decision of the lower court on liability.
[13] On quantum of damages, the respondent relied on the following persuasive authorities to convince the Court that the sum awarded by the lower court was well within the current range of awards for comparable injuries:
[a] Nyeri HCCC No. 320 of 1998: Catherine W. Kingori v Gibson T. Gichubi where Kshs. 350,000/= was awarded in general damages for multiple soft tissue injuries on the left elbow joint and injuries on both ankles.
[b] Nairobi HCCA No. 791 OF 1999: Martin M. Mugi v Attorney General where an award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made in general damages for a deep extensive cut on the face, mild concussion and generalized soft tissue injuries.
[c] Eldoret HCCA No. 32 of 2017: Jyoti Structures Limited & another v Charles Ogada Ochola where an award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made as general damages for blunt injury to the neck, head, chest and right shoulder.
[d] Eldoret HCCA No. 51A of 2018: Edson Convertors & Anor v Robert Khaemba Khamala where an award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made as general damages for blunt injury to the chest, blunt injury to the abdomen and blunt injury to both lower limbs.
[14] On the basis of the above authorities, the respondent urged the Court to find that the award by the lower court was reasonable, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries she sustained.
[15] This being a first appeal, it is the duty of the Court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower court and come to its own conclusions thereon while bearing in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses. In Selle & Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123 it was held that:
"...this court is not bound necessarily to accept the findings of fact by the court below. An appeal to this court ... is by way of retrial and the principles upon which this court acts in such an appeal are well settled. Briefly put they are that this court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions though it should always bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in this respect..."
[16] Before the lower court, the respondent testified as PW1. She adopted her witness statement dated 20 th July 2022 as part of her evidence in chief. Her evidence was that on the 4 th June 2023, she was traveling from Eldoret to Shame aboard Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDG 483 S Matatu when the said motor vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident. She explained that the motor vehicle hit a motorcycle on the right lane facing Chavakali direction, which was the correct lane for the oncoming motorcycle. The motor vehicle veered off the road and hit a building on the right side of the road.
[17] It was also the evidence of PW1 that the motor vehicle was being driven at such a high speed that the passengers had to intervene by asking the driver to reduce his speed but he ignored their pleas. She added that she sustained bodily injuries on the fingers, back chest and right leg, for which she was taken to hospital for treatment. She was thereafter examined by Dr. Sokobe and a report prepared which she produced as one of her exhibits before the lower court.
[18] By consent of the aprties, the evidence adduced by the police officer in Kapsabet Chief Magistrate’s Civil Case No. 136 of 2022 was adopted as the respondent’s evidence in the lower court suit. From the Judgment rendered by the lower court dated 18 th January 2024, it is evident that the traffic police officer confirmed that in CMCC No 136 of 2022 that the accident occurred as a matter of fact, and that the respondent herein was one of the people who were injured. It is also evident that, according to the evidence of the traffic police officer, the driver of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDG 483 S was to blame for the accident for, inter alia, overtaking when it was not safe to do so, thereby colliding head-on with an oncoming motorcycle.
[19] The Record of Appeal shows, at page 7, that although the appellants were granted time to avail witnesses, they were unable to and had to close their case without adducing any rebuttal evidence. I therefore have no hesitation in holding that, on the basis of the evidence presented by the respondent, the learned magistrate cannot be faulted for fixing liability at 100% against the appellants. Indeed, the four grounds of appeal all show that the appeal is about quantum as opposed to liability. Consequently, the only issue for consideration is whether the lower court’s award of Kshs. 300, 000/= as general damages is erroneous in the circumstances.
[20] In H. West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326, it was acknowledged that:
"...In a sphere in which no one can predicate with complete assurance that the award made by another is wrong the best that can be done is to pay regard to the range of limits of current thought. In a case such as the present it is natural and reasonable for any member of an appellate tribunal to pose for himself the question as to what award he himself would have made. Having done so, and remembering that in this sphere there are inevitably differences of view and of opinion, he does not however proceed to dismiss as wrong a figure of an award merely because it does not correspond with the figure of his own assessment."
[21] The Court of Appeal restated this principle in Hellen Waruguru Waweru (Suing as the legal representative of Peter Waweru Mwenja v Kiarie Shoe Stores Limited [2015] eKLR as follows:
"As a general principle, assessment of damages lies in the discretion of the trial court and an appellate Court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the Judge proceeded on wrong principles or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low. The Court must be satisfied that either the Judge, in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one or that; short of this, the amount is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages."
[22] Therefore, as far as possible, comparable injuries ought to attract the same award for purposes of uniformity and predictability. The Court of Appeal made this point in Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda [2004] eKLR, and held:
“…we must consider the award of damages in the light of the injuries sustained. It has been stated now and again that in assessment of damages, the general approach should be that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards keeping in mind the correct level of awards in similar cases.”
[23] In this instance, the respondent pleaded the following injuries in his Plaint:
[a] Multiple cut wounds on the baccal cavity
[b] Blunt injury to the chest
[c] Blunt injury to the lower back
[d] Bruises on the both upper limbs
[e] Blunt injury to the right lower limb
[24] I have perused the report prepared by Dr. Sokobe dated 4 th July 2022. It confirms that Dr. Sokobe examined the respondent and noted the respondent had been injured in a road traffic accident as alleged and had sustained multiple cut wounds on the buccal cavity, blunt injuries to the chest, lower back and right lower limb, as well as bruises on the upper limbs. He confirmed that the respondent still had some pain on the chest and back and had healed wounds on the buccal cavity and both upper limbs.
[25] The respondent also produced a treatment document from Jayo Medical Clinic dated 4 th June 2022. It confirms that the respondent was attended to at the facility following a road traffic accident before being referred to Kapasabet County Hospital for further management.
[26] It is manifest therefore that the respondent proved her injuries. I have given due consideration to the authorities relied on by learned counsel and note that all the decisions relied on by the appellants were made in 2021 and 2022. The court is under obligation to take into account the age of the authorities and the effect of inflation on the Kenya Shilling, among other things, when determining the issue of quantum. On the other hand, the authority relied on by the respondent involved much more serious injuries.
[27] Granted the circumstances of this case, I find the following authorities to be more comparable:
[a] Kapsabet High Court Civil Appeal No. E050 of 2024: Classic Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Limited and another v Geoffrey Kibet Koech in which the respondent sustained bruises on the head, blunt injury to the neck, blunt injury to the chest, blunt injury to the right leg with bruises, and blunt injury to the mouth with loosening of the teeth. The Court reduced the award on appeal to Kshs. 200,000/= on 9 th July 2026.
[a] Surian Enterprises Ltd v Mary Bahati Peter (Civil Appeal No. E199 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 20426 (KLR) (5 July 2023) (Judgment) an award of Kshs. 300,000/= for soft tissue injuries, including deep cut on the forehead and blunt injury to the right knee, was considered inordinately high. Consequently, the award was reduced to Kshs. 150,000/=.
[28] Guided by the aforesaid authorities I am of the considered view that while the sum proposed by the appellants are on the lower side, an award of Kshs. 200,000/= would suffice in the circumstances. There was no dispute as to the special damages component. Accordingly, the appeal on quantum is allowed and orders given as hereunder:
[a] The judgment of the lower court is hereby set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 200,000/= for general damages.
[b] The special damages of Kshs. 6,700/= remains undisturbed together with interest and costs.
[c] Each party to bear own costs of the appeal.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY 2026