' REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E013 OF 2024
JAMES WANYOIKE T/A PROMISE
(MWANAKE LUXURY) COACH…………………………………………….....1 ST APPELLANT
NEW PROMISE CONTRACTORS CO. LTD…………………………………2 ND APPELLANT
GIDRAF MUIRURI……………………………………………………………….3 RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
ADAPAL FELISTUS LOBOLIA (suing through the next friend & sister)
ROSA EKAL ESIYEN………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
The instant appeal emanates from the Judgment of the Honourable V. Shivega, Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator, sitting at the Small Claims Court in Kakuma, delivered on 01/02/2024 in SCCC No. E4 of 2023. The Respondent instituted the suit seeking general and special damages for personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08/08/2023, along the Lodwar-Kakuma road involving a Motor Vehicle Registration Number KDB 115Q, an Isuzu bus, in which the Respondent was traveling as a fare-paying passenger.
The claim was predicated on the negligence of the 3 rd Appellant, the driver of the said motor vehicle. The 1 st and 2 nd Appellants were sued as the alleged owner and operator respectively thereby being held vicariously liable for the acts of the 3 rd Appellant.
In their defence, the Appellants filed a Response denying the claim in its totality, specifically refuting the ownership of the motor vehicle, the occurrence of the accident, and any negligence attributed to them and insisted on strict proof of all allegations. In the alternative, the Appellants pleaded that if an accident did occur, it was wholly or substantially caused by the contributory negligence of the Respondent, thus denying the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur .
The matter proceeded for hearing before the trial court. The record indicates that only the Respondent gave evidence, detailing the injuries suffered by the minor and producing the relevant medical report and documentation to prove the special damages. She was then cross-examined and her case closed. The Appellants despite being granted multiple adjournments, failed to lead evidence but only filed written submissions and medical report leading the court to close their case.
The trial court, upon hearing the matter and reviewing the evidence tendered before it, found the Appellants jointly and severally wholly liable for the accident. The trial court consequently awarded the Respondent a total sum of Kshs. 415,150/=, broken down as follows: Kshs. 300,000/= for General Damages, Kshs. 100,000/= for Future Medical Expenses and Kshs. 15,150/= for Special Damages along with costs and interest of the suit.
Being aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the trial court, the Appellants lodged the instant Appeal vide Memorandum of Appeal dated 16/02/2024. Although the Memorandum of Appeal sets out five grounds of appeal, the substantive grievance is consolidated into a single issue being: that the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider precedents, resulting in awards that were manifestly excessive.
The Court directed that the Appeal be canvassed by way of written submissions. The record confirms the filing of submissions by both the Appellants and the Respondents. The Appellants submit that the award of Kshs. 300,000/= for pain and suffering was inordinately high, arguing that conventional awards for comparable injuries being loss of two incisors and associated soft tissue injuries, range between Kshs. 150,000/= and Kshs. 200,000/=. In support of their case, the Appellant cited the case of ENA Investment Limited v Onduso where an award of Kshs. 250,000/- was upheld for injuries including deep cuts, soft tissue trauma, and the loss of only one tooth.
The Appellants further referenced Meru HCCA Isaac Muriungi Mbataru v Silas Kalumani , where the court assessed that the loss of one or two incisors falls within the lower to mid-range of dental injury awards, typically attracting compensation between Kshs. 150,000/- and Kshs. 250,000/- depending on the circumstances. The Appellants consequently urged this Court to reduce the award for General Damages to a figure not exceeding Kshs. 250,000/-, maintaining that a just and equitable award would lie within the Kshs. 200,000/- to Kshs. 250,000/- range.
The Appellants vehemently challenged the award of Kshs. 100,000/= for Future Medical Expenses (FME), arguing that this amount was inordinately high and unsupported by the evidence tendered. The Appellants asserted that their medical evidence REX1, specifically estimated the cost of permanent dentures required to replace the lost incisors at Kshs. 40,000/-, based on prevailing costs at a public health facility. The core of their argument rested on the contention that the trial court acted on a wrong principle by rejecting the medically substantiated figure of Kshs. 40,000/- and awarding the higher figure of Kshs. 100,000/- on the premise that the Respondent was entitled to the best medical care.
In response, the Respondent emphasized the established legal framework governing appellate interference, relying on the classic statement in Bashir Ahmed Butt v Uwais Ahmed Khan [1982-88] KAR 5, where the Court of Appeal held that interference is justified only if the trial judge proceeded on wrong principles, misapprehended evidence, or arrived at an award so inordinately high or low as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate.
The Respondent submitted that the magistrate adhered to the principle that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards, and contended that the award was assessed with moderation.
On the awarded general damages, the Respondent highlighted the severity of the injuries, noting that the avulsion of two upper incisors was the major injury, compounded by moderately severe soft tissue injuries and assessed at 4% permanent disability. In defending the Kshs. 300,000/= award, the Respondent cited authorities relied upon in the lower court, which clearly placed the compensation within the justifiable range, including ManjiI vs. Khasiani (Kshs. 300,000/-) and Joseph Mutua Nthia vs Fredrick Moses M. Katuva (Kshs. 400,000/- for loss of two teeth and blunt injuries in 2019.
Regarding the future medical expenses, the Respondent defended the trial court’s finding that the Claimant is entitled to the best medical care and should not be confined to a specific facility, noting that the Kshs. 40,000/- proposed by the Appellants was based exclusively on the anticipated cost at a public health facility.
The trial court cited Koru Holy Family Mission Hospital v Koech (Civil Appeal E003 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 3082 (KLR) , which reiterated that the exact cost of future medical expenses depends on several factors, including the location of treatment and the strength of the currency at the time treatment is undertaken. 1 Therefore, the Respondent submitted that the court’s decision to award the higher, specifically pleaded estimate of Kshs. 100,000/- was justified, as it preserved the Respondent’s freedom to elect a quality place for treatment.
This Court, sitting as the first appellate court, carries the mandate to subject the evidence adduced before the Small Claims Court to a fresh scrutiny, re-evaluation, and reassessment, drawing its own conclusions. This duty, however, must be exercised with caution, recognizing that the trial court had the inherent advantage of receiving the evidence directly.
As in the circumstances where the contention is on assessment of damages only, the court reminds itself that the assessment of general damages is at the discretion of the trial court and that it takes a very strong case for an Appellant to interfere. The court in the case of Savanna Saw Mills Ltd vs Gorge Mwale Mudomo (2005) eKLR stated as follows:
“It is the law that the assessment of 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 simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at the first instance ...”
On when an Appellate court can interfere with quantum, the court adopts the position in Court of Appeal''s decision in the case of Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others vs. Attorney General [2016] eKLR , where it was held that:
“... it is firmly established that this Court will be disinclined to disturb the finding of a trial Judge as to the amount of damages merely because they think that if they had tried the case in the first instance, they would have given a larger sum. In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages, it will generally be necessary that this Court should be convinced either that the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very low as to make it, in the judgment of this Court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the Plaintiff is entitled. This is the principle enunciated in Rook v Rainie [1941] 1 All ER 297. It was echoed with approval by this Court in Butt v. Khan [1981] KLR 349 when it held as per law, J.A that:
An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so 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."
When duly guided by the foregoing decision, for this Court to interfere with the an award of damages by the trial court, it must be satisfied that the trial magistrate acted on the wrong principle of law, or misapprehended the fact, or for these or other reasons, made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage suffered. It is not enough that there is a balance of opinion or preference, the scale must go down heavily against the figure attacked if the appellate Court is to interfere, whether on the ground of excess or insufficiency. See Jane Chelagat Bor vs. Andrew Otieno Onduu [1988-92] 2 KAR 288 .
Having said so, the court has further analysed the merits of the appeal against the two heads of damage and appreciates the record to reveal the Respondent to have suffered consequential and visible injuries involving the avulsion of two upper incisor teeth, necessitating future cosmetic and functional dental treatment, along with multiple soft tissue injuries resulting in 4% permanent disability.
The Appellants sought a reduction of the award to a sum between Kshs. 200,000/- and Kshs. 250,000/-, relying on cases primarily concerning a single tooth loss or older comparable awards. The Court acknowledges that the assessment of damages is discretionary but guided by conventional and comparable awards. The trial court’s decision was explicitly based on recent High Court precedents. Specifically, the trial magistrate aligned its award of Kshs. 300,000/= with the figure maintained in Washington Mukunya Karanja & another v Margaret Wambui Maina [2020] eKLR where a claimant with an alveolar fracture of two incisors received the same amount. Furthermore, the award is safely below the Kshs. 400,000/= awarded in Joseph Mutua Nthia v Fredrick Moses M. Katuva [2019] KEHC 4154 (KLR) for two lost teeth and blunt injuries.
The court notes that the judicial determination of general damages remains discretionary, and where the figure chosen falls within an established, verifiable spectrum and reflects a legitimate attempt at compensation, this Court will be disinclined to intervene. The magistrate demonstrated that the award was not arbitrary but was derived through judicial consideration of recent, relevant comparable awards.
The argument by the Appellants that the trial court failed to consider precedents is therefore untrue and the court finds that the award of Kshs. 300,000/= is proportionate and justifiable given the permanent cosmetic and functional impairment arising from the avulsion of two anterior teeth, particularly considering the necessity to account for the diminished value of the shilling since the date of the cited precedents.
Consequently, the Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the award of Kshs. 300,000/= was so inordinately high or resulted from the application of a wrong principle. This ground of appeal, therefore, fails.
On future medical expenses, the court wishes to point that the determination of future medical expenses is governed by a distinct and stringent legal requirement underscoring that even though such claims are compensatory in nature, they constitute special damages and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
In the present case, the trial court had two figures before it; the Appellants’ estimate of Kshs. 40,000/- for permanent dentures at a public facility and the Respondent’s higher estimate of Kshs. 100,000/=. The trial magistrate rejected the lower, proven estimate, arguing that the Respondent was entitled to the best medical care and should not be limited to a public facility. While the sentiment behind ensuring access to quality care is understandable, the law requires that if a claimant intends to seek treatment at a private facility whose cost exceeds the basic, proven cost, the specific cost structure of that superior facility must be substantiated through corresponding documentation or expert evidence.
Indeed there is a principle of law relied upon by the trial court taken from the decisio Tracom Limited & another v Hasssan Mohamed Adan [2009] KECA 48 (KLR) which allows for some approximation, but that approximation must be pegged to evidence. It is the court’s view that by substituting the legal requirement of strict proof with a generalized principle of entitlement, the trial magistrate acted on a wrong principle of law, resulting in an award that lacked specific evidential foundation. The Kshs. 100,000/= estimate, unsupported by specific pro-forma invoices or quotations from a private facility, was purely notional.
The Court finds that the trial court made an error in principle by failing to confine the award for future medical treatment of Kshs. 40,000/= to the maximum amount that was specifically proved by evidence tendered before it. The appeal on this head of damages succeeds.
Accordingly, the appeal challenging the quantum of damages succeeds in part. The Appellants met the required threshold for appellate intervention with respect to the award for Future Medical Expenses, having demonstrated an error in principle by the trial court. The Appellants failed, however, to discharge the heavy burden required to interfere with the trial judge’s discretionary award for General Damages, which was found to be consistent with comparable judicial precedents.
In upshot, the Appeal is allowed in part. The assessment and award of future medical expenses in the sum of Kshs 100,000/= is set aside and in its place substituted an award of Kshs 40,000/=. The Appeal is however dismissed with respect to the general damages for pain and suffering.
Because there is only partial success, the court directs that each party shall bear on costs of the appeal.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually this 7 th day of November, 2025
<>><>>'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E013 OF 2024
JAMES WANYOIKE T/A PROMISE
(MWANAKE LUXURY) COACH…………………………………………….....1 ST APPELLANT
NEW PROMISE CONTRACTORS CO. LTD…………………………………2 ND APPELLANT
GIDRAF MUIRURI……………………………………………………………….3 RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
ADAPAL FELISTUS LOBOLIA (suing through the next friend & sister)
ROSA EKAL ESIYEN………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
The instant appeal emanates from the Judgment of the Honourable V. Shivega, Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator, sitting at the Small Claims Court in Kakuma, delivered on 01/02/2024 in SCCC No. E4 of 2023. The Respondent instituted the suit seeking general and special damages for personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08/08/2023, along the Lodwar-Kakuma road involving a Motor Vehicle Registration Number KDB 115Q, an Isuzu bus, in which the Respondent was traveling as a fare-paying passenger.
The claim was predicated on the negligence of the 3 rd Appellant, the driver of the said motor vehicle. The 1 st and 2 nd Appellants were sued as the alleged owner and operator respectively thereby being held vicariously liable for the acts of the 3 rd Appellant.
In their defence, the Appellants filed a Response denying the claim in its totality, specifically refuting the ownership of the motor vehicle, the occurrence of the accident, and any negligence attributed to them and insisted on strict proof of all allegations. In the alternative, the Appellants pleaded that if an accident did occur, it was wholly or substantially caused by the contributory negligence of the Respondent, thus denying the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur .
The matter proceeded for hearing before the trial court. The record indicates that only the Respondent gave evidence, detailing the injuries suffered by the minor and producing the relevant medical report and documentation to prove the special damages. She was then cross-examined and her case closed. The Appellants despite being granted multiple adjournments, failed to lead evidence but only filed written submissions and medical report leading the court to close their case.
The trial court, upon hearing the matter and reviewing the evidence tendered before it, found the Appellants jointly and severally wholly liable for the accident. The trial court consequently awarded the Respondent a total sum of Kshs. 415,150/=, broken down as follows: Kshs. 300,000/= for General Damages, Kshs. 100,000/= for Future Medical Expenses and Kshs. 15,150/= for Special Damages along with costs and interest of the suit.
Being aggrieved by the quantum awarded by the trial court, the Appellants lodged the instant Appeal vide Memorandum of Appeal dated 16/02/2024. Although the Memorandum of Appeal sets out five grounds of appeal, the substantive grievance is consolidated into a single issue being: that the learned trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to consider precedents, resulting in awards that were manifestly excessive.
The Court directed that the Appeal be canvassed by way of written submissions. The record confirms the filing of submissions by both the Appellants and the Respondents. The Appellants submit that the award of Kshs. 300,000/= for pain and suffering was inordinately high, arguing that conventional awards for comparable injuries being loss of two incisors and associated soft tissue injuries, range between Kshs. 150,000/= and Kshs. 200,000/=. In support of their case, the Appellant cited the case of ENA Investment Limited v Onduso where an award of Kshs. 250,000/- was upheld for injuries including deep cuts, soft tissue trauma, and the loss of only one tooth.
The Appellants further referenced Meru HCCA Isaac Muriungi Mbataru v Silas Kalumani , where the court assessed that the loss of one or two incisors falls within the lower to mid-range of dental injury awards, typically attracting compensation between Kshs. 150,000/- and Kshs. 250,000/- depending on the circumstances. The Appellants consequently urged this Court to reduce the award for General Damages to a figure not exceeding Kshs. 250,000/-, maintaining that a just and equitable award would lie within the Kshs. 200,000/- to Kshs. 250,000/- range.
The Appellants vehemently challenged the award of Kshs. 100,000/= for Future Medical Expenses (FME), arguing that this amount was inordinately high and unsupported by the evidence tendered. The Appellants asserted that their medical evidence REX1, specifically estimated the cost of permanent dentures required to replace the lost incisors at Kshs. 40,000/-, based on prevailing costs at a public health facility. The core of their argument rested on the contention that the trial court acted on a wrong principle by rejecting the medically substantiated figure of Kshs. 40,000/- and awarding the higher figure of Kshs. 100,000/- on the premise that the Respondent was entitled to the best medical care.
In response, the Respondent emphasized the established legal framework governing appellate interference, relying on the classic statement in Bashir Ahmed Butt v Uwais Ahmed Khan [1982-88] KAR 5, where the Court of Appeal held that interference is justified only if the trial judge proceeded on wrong principles, misapprehended evidence, or arrived at an award so inordinately high or low as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate.
The Respondent submitted that the magistrate adhered to the principle that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards, and contended that the award was assessed with moderation.
On the awarded general damages, the Respondent highlighted the severity of the injuries, noting that the avulsion of two upper incisors was the major injury, compounded by moderately severe soft tissue injuries and assessed at 4% permanent disability. In defending the Kshs. 300,000/= award, the Respondent cited authorities relied upon in the lower court, which clearly placed the compensation within the justifiable range, including ManjiI vs. Khasiani (Kshs. 300,000/-) and Joseph Mutua Nthia vs Fredrick Moses M. Katuva (Kshs. 400,000/- for loss of two teeth and blunt injuries in 2019.
Regarding the future medical expenses, the Respondent defended the trial court’s finding that the Claimant is entitled to the best medical care and should not be confined to a specific facility, noting that the Kshs. 40,000/- proposed by the Appellants was based exclusively on the anticipated cost at a public health facility.
The trial court cited Koru Holy Family Mission Hospital v Koech (Civil Appeal E003 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 3082 (KLR) , which reiterated that the exact cost of future medical expenses depends on several factors, including the location of treatment and the strength of the currency at the time treatment is undertaken. 1 Therefore, the Respondent submitted that the court’s decision to award the higher, specifically pleaded estimate of Kshs. 100,000/- was justified, as it preserved the Respondent’s freedom to elect a quality place for treatment.
This Court, sitting as the first appellate court, carries the mandate to subject the evidence adduced before the Small Claims Court to a fresh scrutiny, re-evaluation, and reassessment, drawing its own conclusions. This duty, however, must be exercised with caution, recognizing that the trial court had the inherent advantage of receiving the evidence directly.
As in the circumstances where the contention is on assessment of damages only, the court reminds itself that the assessment of general damages is at the discretion of the trial court and that it takes a very strong case for an Appellant to interfere. The court in the case of Savanna Saw Mills Ltd vs Gorge Mwale Mudomo (2005) eKLR stated as follows:
“It is the law that the assessment of 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 simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at the first instance ...”
On when an Appellate court can interfere with quantum, the court adopts the position in Court of Appeal''s decision in the case of Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others vs. Attorney General [2016] eKLR , where it was held that:
“... it is firmly established that this Court will be disinclined to disturb the finding of a trial Judge as to the amount of damages merely because they think that if they had tried the case in the first instance, they would have given a larger sum. In order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages, it will generally be necessary that this Court should be convinced either that the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very low as to make it, in the judgment of this Court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the Plaintiff is entitled. This is the principle enunciated in Rook v Rainie [1941] 1 All ER 297. It was echoed with approval by this Court in Butt v. Khan [1981] KLR 349 when it held as per law, J.A that:
An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so 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."
When duly guided by the foregoing decision, for this Court to interfere with the an award of damages by the trial court, it must be satisfied that the trial magistrate acted on the wrong principle of law, or misapprehended the fact, or for these or other reasons, made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage suffered. It is not enough that there is a balance of opinion or preference, the scale must go down heavily against the figure attacked if the appellate Court is to interfere, whether on the ground of excess or insufficiency. See Jane Chelagat Bor vs. Andrew Otieno Onduu [1988-92] 2 KAR 288 .
Having said so, the court has further analysed the merits of the appeal against the two heads of damage and appreciates the record to reveal the Respondent to have suffered consequential and visible injuries involving the avulsion of two upper incisor teeth, necessitating future cosmetic and functional dental treatment, along with multiple soft tissue injuries resulting in 4% permanent disability.
The Appellants sought a reduction of the award to a sum between Kshs. 200,000/- and Kshs. 250,000/-, relying on cases primarily concerning a single tooth loss or older comparable awards. The Court acknowledges that the assessment of damages is discretionary but guided by conventional and comparable awards. The trial court’s decision was explicitly based on recent High Court precedents. Specifically, the trial magistrate aligned its award of Kshs. 300,000/= with the figure maintained in Washington Mukunya Karanja & another v Margaret Wambui Maina [2020] eKLR where a claimant with an alveolar fracture of two incisors received the same amount. Furthermore, the award is safely below the Kshs. 400,000/= awarded in Joseph Mutua Nthia v Fredrick Moses M. Katuva [2019] KEHC 4154 (KLR) for two lost teeth and blunt injuries.
The court notes that the judicial determination of general damages remains discretionary, and where the figure chosen falls within an established, verifiable spectrum and reflects a legitimate attempt at compensation, this Court will be disinclined to intervene. The magistrate demonstrated that the award was not arbitrary but was derived through judicial consideration of recent, relevant comparable awards.
The argument by the Appellants that the trial court failed to consider precedents is therefore untrue and the court finds that the award of Kshs. 300,000/= is proportionate and justifiable given the permanent cosmetic and functional impairment arising from the avulsion of two anterior teeth, particularly considering the necessity to account for the diminished value of the shilling since the date of the cited precedents.
Consequently, the Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the award of Kshs. 300,000/= was so inordinately high or resulted from the application of a wrong principle. This ground of appeal, therefore, fails.
On future medical expenses, the court wishes to point that the determination of future medical expenses is governed by a distinct and stringent legal requirement underscoring that even though such claims are compensatory in nature, they constitute special damages and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
In the present case, the trial court had two figures before it; the Appellants’ estimate of Kshs. 40,000/- for permanent dentures at a public facility and the Respondent’s higher estimate of Kshs. 100,000/=. The trial magistrate rejected the lower, proven estimate, arguing that the Respondent was entitled to the best medical care and should not be limited to a public facility. While the sentiment behind ensuring access to quality care is understandable, the law requires that if a claimant intends to seek treatment at a private facility whose cost exceeds the basic, proven cost, the specific cost structure of that superior facility must be substantiated through corresponding documentation or expert evidence.
Indeed there is a principle of law relied upon by the trial court taken from the decisio Tracom Limited & another v Hasssan Mohamed Adan [2009] KECA 48 (KLR) which allows for some approximation, but that approximation must be pegged to evidence. It is the court’s view that by substituting the legal requirement of strict proof with a generalized principle of entitlement, the trial magistrate acted on a wrong principle of law, resulting in an award that lacked specific evidential foundation. The Kshs. 100,000/= estimate, unsupported by specific pro-forma invoices or quotations from a private facility, was purely notional.
The Court finds that the trial court made an error in principle by failing to confine the award for future medical treatment of Kshs. 40,000/= to the maximum amount that was specifically proved by evidence tendered before it. The appeal on this head of damages succeeds.
Accordingly, the appeal challenging the quantum of damages succeeds in part. The Appellants met the required threshold for appellate intervention with respect to the award for Future Medical Expenses, having demonstrated an error in principle by the trial court. The Appellants failed, however, to discharge the heavy burden required to interfere with the trial judge’s discretionary award for General Damages, which was found to be consistent with comparable judicial precedents.
In upshot, the Appeal is allowed in part. The assessment and award of future medical expenses in the sum of Kshs 100,000/= is set aside and in its place substituted an award of Kshs 40,000/=. The Appeal is however dismissed with respect to the general damages for pain and suffering.
Because there is only partial success, the court directs that each party shall bear on costs of the appeal.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually this 7 th day of November, 2025
<>><>>'