By a Plaint dated 3rd June 2021 the Appellant was sued by the Respondent in Kisii CMCC No. 644 of 2021 seeking special Damages as per paragraph 5 of the Plaint; General Damages for injuries sustained by the Respondent when he Motor Vehicle Reg. KCC 306 L knocked him down 3RD April 2021; the Respondent also sought for costs of the suit in the subordinate court and interest at court rates.
The Trial Magistrate upon considering the evidence adduced by the Respondent and his witness PW1 Daniel Nyameino the Clinical Officer at Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital and evidence of PW2, CPL Inter Saoke against the Appellant found that the Appellant was 100% liable for the accident and injuries sustained by the Respondent. Subsequently quantum of damages was assessed at Kshs. 500,000/= together with Special Damages of Kshs. 25,800/=with costs and interest.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Magistrate the Appellant vide Memorandum of Appeal dated 23rd May, 2024 lodged the appeal herein on the following ground:
1) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in not appreciating sufficiently or at all, that the Respondent was a fraudulent complainant when there was such evidence tendered by the Appellant especially challenging the authenticity and management of the injuries he sustained.
2) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to make determination on of the allegations of fraud on the part of the Respondent despite the same having been specifically pleaded in the Appellant’s Amended Statement of defense.
3) That the Learned Magistrate judgement was unjust against the weight of evidence, submissions and authorities relied upon by the Appellant and was based on misguided points of fact and wrong principles of law and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in not appreciating sufficiently or at all that the Appellant had raised matters of a fundamental nature to warrant the dismissal of the suit against the Appellant.
5) That the Learned Magistrate erred in fixing liability at 100% in favour of the Respondent at all, whereas the accident the subject of the suit was solely caused by the negligence of the Respondent.
6) THAT the award of General Damages was manifestly and inordinately excessive in the circumstances.
7) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact when she relied on erroneous issues as a basis of her determination on liability.
REASONS WHEREFORE the Appellant prayed for judgment against the Respondent for;
(a). That the appeal be allowed and the Trial Magistrate’s judgment (and decree) be set aside and / or varied.
(b). That the court being the first appellate court do re-visit and re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at own independent findings dismissing the Respondent’s claim.;
(c). That the costs of this appeal and costs incurred in the subordinate court be awarded to the Appellant.
The Respondent’s case was that he was travelling in Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCJ 845 R when Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCC 306 L hit it from behind when the same lost control while being driven at very high speed and he sustained injuries particularized in the Plaint.
The Respondent did not call any witnesses to support its defence that they were not liable for the accident.
The appeal herein was canvassed by way of written submissions.
The Appellant’s submissions are dated 3rd December 2024. The Appellant cited the holding in the case of Kiema Muthuku Vs Kenya Cargo Handling Services Ltd (1991) and submitted that there can never be liability without fault ad the Plaintiff must prove some negligence against the Defendant where the claim is based on negligence. It was submitted that since the parties are blaming each other for the accident and there are two sets of facts as to how the accident occurred it is not clear how the Trial Magistrate held the Appellant 100% liable. The holding in Nicholas Nyangwechi Miyoyo Joseph Vs James Nyakundi Nyamrai & 2 Others (2019) eKLRe was relied upon in which it was held:
That since the trial court was presented with two plausible versions of the accident and no sketch plan was prepared by the police to aid in ascertaining who was to blame between the two parties and in the absence of an independent witness, it is impossible to see how one account was more plausible than the other.
InHussein Omar Farah v Lento Agencies CA NAI Civil Appeal 34 of 2005 [2006] eKLRthe Court of Appeal held;
In our view, it is not reasonably possible to decide on the evidence of the witnesses who testified on both sides as to who is to blame for the accident. In this state of affairs the question arises whether both drivers should be held to blame. It has been held in our jurisdiction and also other jurisdictions that if there is no concrete evidence to determine who is to blame between two drivers, both should be held equally to blame
On quantum the Appellant submitted that the award made by the Trial Magistrate was inordinately high as compared to the damages awarded in other similar cases. It was further submitted that the Respondent failed to table evidence of further treatment and that the proposal by the Appellant who cited several authorities for injuries similar to those of the Respondent should have been considered. The Appellant opined that Kshs. 350,000/= is reasonable for the injuries the Respondent suffered.
The Respondent’s submissions are dated 26th December 2024 and are to the effect that there was no dispute that Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCC 306 L was involved in an accident on 3rd April 2021 and that the said vehicle belonged to the Appellant.
It was further submitted that the Appellant did not call any witness to controvert and/ or to challenge the Respondent’s evidence before the trial court. The Respondent submitted that his evidence was corroborated by the evidence of CPL Inter Saoke who was the Investigating Officer ad who produced a police abstract that was never challenged in court. The Respondent urged the court to dismiss the Appeal with costs.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
This being the 1st appeal this court is mandated to re-evaluate and scrutinize the evidence and judgment of the lower court afresh, and make conclusions and independent decision on whether to allow the appeal. The court does this even though it did not have the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses 1st hand. In Selle & Another vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123, this principle was enunciated thus:
"...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..."
Having considered the grounds of appeal and rival submissions and having re-evaluated and scrutinized the evidence and judgment of the trial court afresh the issue that arises for determination is:
1) Whether Appellant pleaded and proved fraud against the Respondent’s claim for damages
2) Whether the judgement was unjust against the weight of evidence, submissions and authorities relied upon by the Appellant and was based on misguided points of fact and wrong principles of law and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
3) Whether the Learned Magistrate failed to consider matters fundamental matters raised by the Appellant that warranted the dismissal of the suit against the Appellant.
4) Whether the Learned Magistrate erred in fixing liability at 100% in favour of the Respondent at all and whether the accident the subject of the suit was solely caused by the negligence of the Respondent.
5) Whether the award of General Damages was manifestly and inordinately excessive in the circumstances.
6) Whether the Learned Magistrate relied on erroneous issues as a basis of her determination on liability.
In Simon Taveta -vs-mercy Mutitu Njeru (2014) Eklr, the Court of Appeal held;
‘’An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact by the trial court unless they were based on no evidence at all, or on a misapprehension of it or on demonstrably wrong principles not supported by evidence or on wrong principles of the law.’’
Further in the case of Andy Forwarders Services Ltd and 2 Others -vs- Godfrey Githiri Njenga (2018) Eklr the court observed;
‘’An appellate court will not disturb an award for damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely 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.”
In re-evaluating the evidence in the trial court it was the testimony of the Respondent that on 3rd April 2021 he was travelling as a fare paying passenger in Motor vehicle Reg. No. KCJ 845 R along Migoro-Kisii road when the Appellant’s motor vehicle which was coming from the same direction at high speed lost control and knocked the vehicle that the Respondent was travelling in and he sustained severe injuries to wit:
-contusion to the chest
-fractures of the left radius and ulna
-lacerations to the left hand
-dislocation of the right hip joint
-bruises to the left ankle region and
-dislocation on the right ankle joint.
The accident in question was reported to the police and an Abstract was issued to that effect as shown in the Respondent’s list of documents dated 3rd June 2021. The said Police Abstract was produced by CPL Inter Saoke in CMCCC No. E594 which also arose out of the same accident as the claim herein. The Appellant in its statement of Defence contended that it was motor vehicle Reg. No. KCJ 845R which was driven recklessly and it ploughed into Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCC 306 L. The Respondent produced a demand letter to the Appellants Ex P 7 which was not responded to and the Appellant did not call any witness to controvert the evidence that an accident occurred involving the 2 motor vehicles in question and the submissions that their evidence and material blamed the Respondent for the occurrence of the accident cannot stand.
The Respondent adduced evidence of the injuries he sustained as shown in the various treatment documents obtained at Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital where he was admitted and treated as well as the P3 form that was produced by the Clinical Officer Daniel Nyameino as Exhibits P 4; Ex P2 Clinical Approved Card; Treatment Notes Ex P3; Medical Report 4(a) & Receipts Ex P5 (b). The Respondent further produced a bundle of receipts for Kshs. 19,300/= which he used following the said accident. Although the Appellant claimed that the Respondent was fraudulent in failing to table evidence of further treatment, there was no other evidence adduced to controvert the fact that the Respondent sought for further treatment as per the documents produced to support the claim.
It follows that the Trial Magistrate rightly determined that the Respondent was entitled to be compensated for injuries suffered following the injuries suffered in the accident as he proved his case that he suffered the injuries particularized in the Plaint on a balance of probabilities.
On the quantum of damages the Appellant relied on the following authorities to support its proposal for Kshs. 350,000/=
(a) Gerald Muhuthia Mwangi Vs John Mburugu & Another (2022) Eklr where general damages of Kshs 280,000/= were awarded for fracture of the distal right clavicle with superior displacement,bruises on the right shoulder and soft tissue injuries to the back.
(b) Daniel Otieno Owino & Another Vs Elizabeth Atieno Owuor (2020) @KLR where Kshs. 400,000/= was awarded where the Plaintiff suffered compound fractures of the tibia/ fibula bones on the right leg, deep cut wound and tissue damage on the right leg, blunt chest and head injury with cut wound on the nose.
(c) Maina Onesmus Vs Charles Wanjohi Githome (2019) @KLR where Kshs. 350,000/= was awarded for fracture of the midshaft humerous, fracture of the condyles, fracture of the shoulder gird and pain and psychological trauma.
The Respondent proposed Kshs. 1,500,000/= as general damages and cited the following authorities
(a) T.B Distributors Vs Josephat Motuka Ogana HCCA No. E060 of 2021 where the plaintiff sustained head injury, multiple cut wounds on the neck and head with multiple bruises, fracture of the right 3rd & 4th ribs, chest contusions, dislocation of the right tibia/ fibula, medial dislocation of the right foot and cut wounds on the right calf muscle and were awarded Kshs. 1,000,000/= as general damages.
(b) Wilfred Nyakundi Vs The Board of Management Friends Mukuyu Secondary School CA No. 39 of 2021(Kisii) where damages of Kshs.800.000/= was made for fracture of the pelvis and soft tissue injuries.
The Trial Magistrate did say that the Appellant’s authorities were relevant but did not apply any in quantifying damages. Instead the authority in Jitan Nagra Vs Abednego Nyandusi Oigo (2018) @KLR was considered to be the most relevant and applied to arrive at the figure of Kshs. 500,000/= as general Damages for pain and suffering and special damages of Kshs. 25,800/=.
This court has considered the said rival submissions and case law by the parties and taking into consideration that an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial judge it must be satisfied that either the Judge, in assessing the damages took into account on irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one, or that short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.” As was held in Kemfro Africa L td T/A Meru Express Service (1982 – 88) 1 KAR 777 I do find that the appellant did not point out in the appeal any irrelevant factor that the Trial Magistrate took into account in making the award. Neither did the appellant point out any relevant factor the learned magistrate left out. The appellant did not show how the said award of the trial court is inordinately high and erroneous.
This court has considered the said judgment of the trial court and it is clear from the same that in arriving at the award, the trial court relied on an authority that was equally relevant in the circumstances and facts of the case herein. The authority in Maina Onesmus (supra) was determined on 8th February 2019 and the accident leading to the said claim occurred on 1st July 2014. An award of damages made for injuries sustained in 2014 cannot logically be the same as for injuries sustained on 3rd April 2021 even where the injuries are the same. The court even without expressly saying so must consider the current economic trend, and inflationary factors in arriving at an appropriate award.
Based on the above finding I do find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Trial Magistrate in award of General Damages for pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by the Respondent. The appeal herein therefore lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered dated and signed at Kisii this 15th day of May 2025.
The Trial Magistrate upon considering the evidence adduced by the Respondent and his witness PW1 Daniel Nyameino the Clinical Officer at Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital and evidence of PW2, CPL Inter Saoke against the Appellant found that the Appellant was 100% liable for the accident and injuries sustained by the Respondent. Subsequently quantum of damages was assessed at Kshs. 500,000/= together with Special Damages of Kshs. 25,800/=with costs and interest.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Magistrate the Appellant vide Memorandum of Appeal dated 23rd May, 2024 lodged the appeal herein on the following ground:
1) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in not appreciating sufficiently or at all, that the Respondent was a fraudulent complainant when there was such evidence tendered by the Appellant especially challenging the authenticity and management of the injuries he sustained.
2) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in failing to make determination on of the allegations of fraud on the part of the Respondent despite the same having been specifically pleaded in the Appellant’s Amended Statement of defense.
3) That the Learned Magistrate judgement was unjust against the weight of evidence, submissions and authorities relied upon by the Appellant and was based on misguided points of fact and wrong principles of law and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
4) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in not appreciating sufficiently or at all that the Appellant had raised matters of a fundamental nature to warrant the dismissal of the suit against the Appellant.
5) That the Learned Magistrate erred in fixing liability at 100% in favour of the Respondent at all, whereas the accident the subject of the suit was solely caused by the negligence of the Respondent.
6) THAT the award of General Damages was manifestly and inordinately excessive in the circumstances.
7) That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact when she relied on erroneous issues as a basis of her determination on liability.
REASONS WHEREFORE the Appellant prayed for judgment against the Respondent for;
(a). That the appeal be allowed and the Trial Magistrate’s judgment (and decree) be set aside and / or varied.
(b). That the court being the first appellate court do re-visit and re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at own independent findings dismissing the Respondent’s claim.;
(c). That the costs of this appeal and costs incurred in the subordinate court be awarded to the Appellant.
The Respondent’s case was that he was travelling in Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCJ 845 R when Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCC 306 L hit it from behind when the same lost control while being driven at very high speed and he sustained injuries particularized in the Plaint.
The Respondent did not call any witnesses to support its defence that they were not liable for the accident.
The appeal herein was canvassed by way of written submissions.
The Appellant’s submissions are dated 3rd December 2024. The Appellant cited the holding in the case of Kiema Muthuku Vs Kenya Cargo Handling Services Ltd (1991) and submitted that there can never be liability without fault ad the Plaintiff must prove some negligence against the Defendant where the claim is based on negligence. It was submitted that since the parties are blaming each other for the accident and there are two sets of facts as to how the accident occurred it is not clear how the Trial Magistrate held the Appellant 100% liable. The holding in Nicholas Nyangwechi Miyoyo Joseph Vs James Nyakundi Nyamrai & 2 Others (2019) eKLRe was relied upon in which it was held:
That since the trial court was presented with two plausible versions of the accident and no sketch plan was prepared by the police to aid in ascertaining who was to blame between the two parties and in the absence of an independent witness, it is impossible to see how one account was more plausible than the other.
InHussein Omar Farah v Lento Agencies CA NAI Civil Appeal 34 of 2005 [2006] eKLRthe Court of Appeal held;
In our view, it is not reasonably possible to decide on the evidence of the witnesses who testified on both sides as to who is to blame for the accident. In this state of affairs the question arises whether both drivers should be held to blame. It has been held in our jurisdiction and also other jurisdictions that if there is no concrete evidence to determine who is to blame between two drivers, both should be held equally to blame
On quantum the Appellant submitted that the award made by the Trial Magistrate was inordinately high as compared to the damages awarded in other similar cases. It was further submitted that the Respondent failed to table evidence of further treatment and that the proposal by the Appellant who cited several authorities for injuries similar to those of the Respondent should have been considered. The Appellant opined that Kshs. 350,000/= is reasonable for the injuries the Respondent suffered.
The Respondent’s submissions are dated 26th December 2024 and are to the effect that there was no dispute that Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCC 306 L was involved in an accident on 3rd April 2021 and that the said vehicle belonged to the Appellant.
It was further submitted that the Appellant did not call any witness to controvert and/ or to challenge the Respondent’s evidence before the trial court. The Respondent submitted that his evidence was corroborated by the evidence of CPL Inter Saoke who was the Investigating Officer ad who produced a police abstract that was never challenged in court. The Respondent urged the court to dismiss the Appeal with costs.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
This being the 1st appeal this court is mandated to re-evaluate and scrutinize the evidence and judgment of the lower court afresh, and make conclusions and independent decision on whether to allow the appeal. The court does this even though it did not have the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses 1st hand. In Selle & Another vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123, this principle was enunciated thus:
"...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..."
Having considered the grounds of appeal and rival submissions and having re-evaluated and scrutinized the evidence and judgment of the trial court afresh the issue that arises for determination is:
1) Whether Appellant pleaded and proved fraud against the Respondent’s claim for damages
2) Whether the judgement was unjust against the weight of evidence, submissions and authorities relied upon by the Appellant and was based on misguided points of fact and wrong principles of law and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
3) Whether the Learned Magistrate failed to consider matters fundamental matters raised by the Appellant that warranted the dismissal of the suit against the Appellant.
4) Whether the Learned Magistrate erred in fixing liability at 100% in favour of the Respondent at all and whether the accident the subject of the suit was solely caused by the negligence of the Respondent.
5) Whether the award of General Damages was manifestly and inordinately excessive in the circumstances.
6) Whether the Learned Magistrate relied on erroneous issues as a basis of her determination on liability.
In Simon Taveta -vs-mercy Mutitu Njeru (2014) Eklr, the Court of Appeal held;
‘’An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact by the trial court unless they were based on no evidence at all, or on a misapprehension of it or on demonstrably wrong principles not supported by evidence or on wrong principles of the law.’’
Further in the case of Andy Forwarders Services Ltd and 2 Others -vs- Godfrey Githiri Njenga (2018) Eklr the court observed;
‘’An appellate court will not disturb an award for damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely 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.”
In re-evaluating the evidence in the trial court it was the testimony of the Respondent that on 3rd April 2021 he was travelling as a fare paying passenger in Motor vehicle Reg. No. KCJ 845 R along Migoro-Kisii road when the Appellant’s motor vehicle which was coming from the same direction at high speed lost control and knocked the vehicle that the Respondent was travelling in and he sustained severe injuries to wit:
-contusion to the chest
-fractures of the left radius and ulna
-lacerations to the left hand
-dislocation of the right hip joint
-bruises to the left ankle region and
-dislocation on the right ankle joint.
The accident in question was reported to the police and an Abstract was issued to that effect as shown in the Respondent’s list of documents dated 3rd June 2021. The said Police Abstract was produced by CPL Inter Saoke in CMCCC No. E594 which also arose out of the same accident as the claim herein. The Appellant in its statement of Defence contended that it was motor vehicle Reg. No. KCJ 845R which was driven recklessly and it ploughed into Motor Vehicle Reg. No. KCC 306 L. The Respondent produced a demand letter to the Appellants Ex P 7 which was not responded to and the Appellant did not call any witness to controvert the evidence that an accident occurred involving the 2 motor vehicles in question and the submissions that their evidence and material blamed the Respondent for the occurrence of the accident cannot stand.
The Respondent adduced evidence of the injuries he sustained as shown in the various treatment documents obtained at Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital where he was admitted and treated as well as the P3 form that was produced by the Clinical Officer Daniel Nyameino as Exhibits P 4; Ex P2 Clinical Approved Card; Treatment Notes Ex P3; Medical Report 4(a) & Receipts Ex P5 (b). The Respondent further produced a bundle of receipts for Kshs. 19,300/= which he used following the said accident. Although the Appellant claimed that the Respondent was fraudulent in failing to table evidence of further treatment, there was no other evidence adduced to controvert the fact that the Respondent sought for further treatment as per the documents produced to support the claim.
It follows that the Trial Magistrate rightly determined that the Respondent was entitled to be compensated for injuries suffered following the injuries suffered in the accident as he proved his case that he suffered the injuries particularized in the Plaint on a balance of probabilities.
On the quantum of damages the Appellant relied on the following authorities to support its proposal for Kshs. 350,000/=
(a) Gerald Muhuthia Mwangi Vs John Mburugu & Another (2022) Eklr where general damages of Kshs 280,000/= were awarded for fracture of the distal right clavicle with superior displacement,bruises on the right shoulder and soft tissue injuries to the back.
(b) Daniel Otieno Owino & Another Vs Elizabeth Atieno Owuor (2020) @KLR where Kshs. 400,000/= was awarded where the Plaintiff suffered compound fractures of the tibia/ fibula bones on the right leg, deep cut wound and tissue damage on the right leg, blunt chest and head injury with cut wound on the nose.
(c) Maina Onesmus Vs Charles Wanjohi Githome (2019) @KLR where Kshs. 350,000/= was awarded for fracture of the midshaft humerous, fracture of the condyles, fracture of the shoulder gird and pain and psychological trauma.
The Respondent proposed Kshs. 1,500,000/= as general damages and cited the following authorities
(a) T.B Distributors Vs Josephat Motuka Ogana HCCA No. E060 of 2021 where the plaintiff sustained head injury, multiple cut wounds on the neck and head with multiple bruises, fracture of the right 3rd & 4th ribs, chest contusions, dislocation of the right tibia/ fibula, medial dislocation of the right foot and cut wounds on the right calf muscle and were awarded Kshs. 1,000,000/= as general damages.
(b) Wilfred Nyakundi Vs The Board of Management Friends Mukuyu Secondary School CA No. 39 of 2021(Kisii) where damages of Kshs.800.000/= was made for fracture of the pelvis and soft tissue injuries.
The Trial Magistrate did say that the Appellant’s authorities were relevant but did not apply any in quantifying damages. Instead the authority in Jitan Nagra Vs Abednego Nyandusi Oigo (2018) @KLR was considered to be the most relevant and applied to arrive at the figure of Kshs. 500,000/= as general Damages for pain and suffering and special damages of Kshs. 25,800/=.
This court has considered the said rival submissions and case law by the parties and taking into consideration that an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial judge it must be satisfied that either the Judge, in assessing the damages took into account on irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one, or that short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.” As was held in Kemfro Africa L td T/A Meru Express Service (1982 – 88) 1 KAR 777 I do find that the appellant did not point out in the appeal any irrelevant factor that the Trial Magistrate took into account in making the award. Neither did the appellant point out any relevant factor the learned magistrate left out. The appellant did not show how the said award of the trial court is inordinately high and erroneous.
This court has considered the said judgment of the trial court and it is clear from the same that in arriving at the award, the trial court relied on an authority that was equally relevant in the circumstances and facts of the case herein. The authority in Maina Onesmus (supra) was determined on 8th February 2019 and the accident leading to the said claim occurred on 1st July 2014. An award of damages made for injuries sustained in 2014 cannot logically be the same as for injuries sustained on 3rd April 2021 even where the injuries are the same. The court even without expressly saying so must consider the current economic trend, and inflationary factors in arriving at an appropriate award.
Based on the above finding I do find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Trial Magistrate in award of General Damages for pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by the Respondent. The appeal herein therefore lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered dated and signed at Kisii this 15th day of May 2025.