This is the first appeal arising from the judgement of the Resident Magistrate Court at Mavoko delivered on 30th June 2023 in Mavoko CMCC number E350 of 2022.
By a plaint dated 6th April 2022 the respondent sued the appellant for
a. General damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act
b. Special damages Ksh 67,550.
c. Costs and interest.
The defense entered appearance and filed a statement of defense dated 17th May 2022.
The matter proceeded for full hearing. The trial court on 30th June 2023 entered judgement for the respondent against the appellant in the following terms:
- Liability 100%
- Pain and suffering Ksh 50,000
- Loss of expectation of life Ksh 100, 000
- Loss of dependency Ksh 12,522.70 * 12 * 35 * 1/3 = 1,703,087.20
- Special damages Ksh 34,800
Total Ksh 1,887,887.20
The respondent was also granted the costs of the suit and interest.
The appellant being dissatisfied with this judgement lodged this appeal. In the memorandum of appeal dated 18th of December 2023 they indicated the grounds of appeal to be:
1. That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact misdirected himself in law, principle and facts when he misapprehended and misunderstood the applicable principles and the law in assessing quantum thereby arriving at an award that is manifestly and inordinately high as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate of damages in the circumstances of the case.
2. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by arriving at a finding on liability which went against the weight of the evidence.
3. The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by making a finding in favour of the respondent when they had not proved their case on a balance of probabilities.
4. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding the respondent a global sum of Ksh 1,887 887.20 damages under the Fatal Accidents Act which award was too excessive in this circumstances.
5. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in adopting a multiplier of 34 years when calculating the claim for loss of dependency, which multiplier was high considering the age of the deceased person and the vagaries and uncertainties of life.
6. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding the respondent a sum of Ksh 100,000 as damages under the Law Reform Act which award was too excessive in the circumstances.
7. The learned magistrate erred in law by failing to deduct the damages awarded under the Law reforms Act from the total award.
8. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding the respondent Ksh 50,000 being pain and suffering which award was too excessive in the circumstances.
9. The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to accord due regard to the appellant's submissions and authorities on quantum on applicable principles for assessment of damages.
Parties then filed written submissions.
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS
They are dated 27th October 2025. They formulated the matters for determination to be:
a. Whether the trial court erred in its findings on general damages.
b. Who should bear the costs of the appeal.
On quantum they submitted as hereunder:
- Pain and suffering. The deceased died on the same day of the accident therefore the award of 20,000 is reasonable.
- Loss of expectation of life. The deceased was 23 years old at the time of his demise. The court awarded a sum of Ksh 100,000. They submitted that this figure is modest and they have no issue with it.
- Loss of dependency. The plaintiff's witness statement said that the deceased was her son and was a casual laborer. In court she testified that the deceased was a driver and earned Ksh 20,000. In the judgement the court awarded damages and assumed the deceased was a blacksmith earning Ksh 25,000. There was no contract, no employer confirmation and no oral evidence to prove that the deceased had any stable income. Their contention was that the court should have applied a global award instead of using the multiplicand - multiplier approach. This is because the estate of the deceased did not offer any documentary evidence to prove income. They proposed a global sum of 1 million for loss of dependency. They relied on the following authorities:
1. Karaike versus Munene (suing as the legal administrator of the estate of Peris Wanjiru Mugo (deceased) (2024) KEHC 6808 KLR.
2. Geoffrey Obiero and another versus Kenya Power & Lighting Corporation Limited and another (2019) KEHC 1543 KLR
However, should the court find that the global approach is not suitable they submitted as follows:
- Multiplicand. This is the annual income multiplied by a suitable multiplier of expected working life lost by the disease by the premature death and father by a factor of dependency ratio that is the ratio of the deceased's income utilized on his dependents. Under the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order 2018 the minimum basic wage exclusive of housing allowance for Mavoko, Ruiru and Limuru is Ksh 12,550.
- Multiplier. The deceased was aged 23 years and is alleged to have worked either as a driver or casual laborer. No contract of employment or any document has been filed to confirm that he was indeed in employment at the time of his death. The vicissitudes of life however do potentially curtail such working. They contended that the court should not therefore mechanically adopt a mathematical approach as it will be a plastic and unreflective of the reality of life where a person's journey is fraught with many uncertainties. They proposed that the court adopts a multiplier of 25 years which is reasonable considering the vicissitude and vagaries of life.
- Dependency ratio. Since the deceased was not married a dependency ratio of 1/3 would suffice. The computation for loss of expectation of life will therefore be: Ksh 12,500 * 12 * 25 * 1/3 which is equal Ksh 1,255,000
- They indicated they have no issue with the award for special damages.
DOUBLE COMPENSATION.
The submitted that where a claimant gets awards for loss of life both under the Law Reform Act and in the Fatal Accidents Act the former should be deducted from the latter. They relied on the case of Transpares Kenya Limited and another versus SMM (suing as legal representative for and on behalf of the estate of EMM deceased (2015) eKLR
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
They are dated 3rd March 2026. They submitted under the following heads on quantum of damages:
PAIN AND SUFFERING: it was their submission that the award made by the trial court was a conventional award and cannot be said to be excessive. They relied on the case of Acceller Global Logistics versus Gladys Nasambu Waswa and another (2020) eKLR where the court awarded a sum of Ksh 50,000 for pain and suffering where the deceased died immediately after the accident.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: they submitted that it is undisputed that the deceased was at the material time working and earned a living which he used to support his dependants. Even the death certificate states that the deceased was a businessman at the time of his death. PW1 testified that the deceased was a driver at the material time which was a clarification from her statement which erroneously indicated that he was a casual laborer at the time. The absence of proof of the deceased's earnings in the form of receipts cannot be construed to mean he was not working for gain. They urged the court to apply a minimum wage as a multiplicand. The deceased worked as a driver within Mavoko township and under the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order 2018 his salary would be Ksh 16,428.
On the multiplier to be applied it was stated that the deceased died at the age of 23 years and was of sound health. He would have worked till the age of 70 so the court’s decision to order a multiplier of 34 is well founded, justified and not too high in light of comparable authorities. The dependency ratio of 1/3 as adopted by the trial court is not disputed.
They urged the court to vary the judgement as follows
Ksh 16,428 * 12 * 1/3 * 34 = Ksh 2,234,208
In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, they suggested that in the event the court is persuaded to adopt the global sum then the trial court award can be rectified to be Ksh 3 million. They relied on the following authorities:
- County Government of Kitui and another verses Mutinda and another (sued as the administrators of the estate of Samson Kyalo (2023) KEHC 19,406 KLR
- Kidiga and another versus Onguna and another (suing as the administrator of the estate of Elvis Omondi Otieno - deceased (Civil Appeal E100 or 2024) (2025) KEHC 10,525 KLR
Since this is a first appeal, I am required to evaluate the entire evidence on record, draw my own inferences and conclusions, and interfere with the trial court's findings only if they are based on no evidence, a misapprehension of evidence or if the court applied a wrong principle of law (Selle & another vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited and others (1968) EA 123 at page 126; Peters versus Sunday Post Limited (1958) EA 424
Brief facts
The claim emanated from a road traffic accident that occurred on 27th August 2020 whereby the deceased, Josphat Masili Kivuva who was allegedly traveling as a passenger on board motor vehicle registration number kbv 840F along Mlolongo - Katani road when the vehicle's owner or his driver so negligently drove, managed and or controlled the said motor vehicle at a high speed that he lost control of the motor vehicle and caused and or permitted it to veer off the road and throw the deceased from the moving motor vehicle as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and succumbed to the same.
The following witnesses testified in court.
PW1 Jane Kivuva relied on her statement which indicated that she had been called by a good samaritan and was informed of this accident. The deceased was her son who had died following this accident. On cross-examination she stated that the deceased used to work as a driver and she depended on him as he used to pay school fees for his siblings.
PW2 Cpl Amdany from Athi River police station. He confirmed that this accident occurred on 27th August 2020 at about 0800 hours and that after an autopsy was conducted the deceased's family was issued with a police abstract. He stated that the deceased was a passenger and the scene was visited. During cross-examination he confirmed that he was not that investigating officer and was not involved in the investigations.
The plaintiff's case was then closed.
DW1 Paul Ndichu Maina said that he was the driver of the motor vehicle KBV 840F owned by the defendant. On the material day he was on his way to deliver ballast to another company at Katani. He had given a lift to some passengers and on the way he was stopped by a motorcycle rider who informed him that he had hit someone. He went and checked and discovered that someone had fallen off the motor vehicle without his knowledge and had died from the fall. He explained that he had not been aware that someone had hitchhiked on top of the lorry.
The defense case was then closed.
What is for determination is:
- Liability
- Quantum of damages.
I must comment that despite the fact that liability was one of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant's submissions appear to only dwell on the issue of quantum. They totally ignored the issue of liability. I will still determine the issue of liability.
LIABILITY
The plaintiff PW1 did not witness the accident and therefore did not know how the accident occurred. DW1, the driver of the motor vehicle told the court that he had been instructed to deliver ballast to another company at Katani. He had carried some passengers and was stopped by a motorcycle rider who informed him that someone had fallen off the motor vehicle he was driving. He claimed that he did not know that someone had hitch hiked on top of the motor vehicle at the time. It is clear from this evidence that the deceased had been traveling on top of the ballast at the back of the motor vehicle. Though the driver claimed that he was not aware that someone had hitch hiked at the back of the lorry, I find that there is a probability he could have been aware. The deceased exposed himself to great danger by riding on top of the ballast. For this reason I find the deceased and the driver to be both liable for this accident. I now apportion liability at 50% against the appellant and 50% against the deceased.
QUANTUM
DAMAGES UNDER THE LAW REFORM ACT
Pain and suffering.
The deceased died on the same day of the accident. The court awarded Ksh 50,000 for pain and suffering. I uphold this award.
DAMAGES UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT.
Loss of expectation of life.
The appellant has not contested the Ksh 100,000 given here. The same is therefore upheld.
Loss of dependency.
The deceased was 23 years old at the time of the accident. The plaintiff stated that he was the deceased's mother and that the deceased worked as a driver earning Ksh 20,000. No document was availed to prove this income. The court has been urged to use the minimum wage for drivers in the Mavoko area as provided under the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order of 2018 which was Ksh 16,428.
In the case of Beatrice Wangui Thairu vs Hon Ezekiel Barngetuny & another Nairobi HCCC 1638 of 1988 (UR) the court stated:
“The principles applicable to an assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act are all too clear. The court must in the first instance find out the value of the annual dependency. Such value is usually called the multiplicand. In determining the same, the important figure is the net earnings of the deceased. The court should then multiply the multiplicand by a reasonable figure representing so many years purchase. In choosing the said figure, usually called the multiplier, the court must bear in mind the expectation of earning life of the deceased, the expectation of life and dependency of the dependants and the chances of life of the diseased and the dependants.”
In Leonard Elisa vs Major Virgen (2005) eKLR the court started that in determining the right multiplier, the right approach is to consider the age of the deceased, the balance of earning life, the age of the dependant, the life expected, length of dependency, the vicissitudes of life and factor accelerated by payment in lump sum.”
The deceased being a young man was expected to be setting up his life and would have used probably just a third of his salary on his mother. The appellant has also not disputed the ratio of a third being the dependency ratio. I will adopt this ratio.
On the multiplier to be used what I have considered is the probable number of years the mother would have depended on the deceased and not how many years the deceased would have worked generally. The age of the mother is not clear from the documents that have been availed. I will therefore adopt a multiplier of 20 years. The loss of dependency therefore would work out as hereunder:
16,428 * 12 * 20 * ⅓
= Ksh 1,314,240
Special damages of Ksh 34,800 were not disputed by the appellant.
From the foregoing the appeal succeeds. I hearby set aside the lower court's judgement in CMCC number E350 of 2022 and substitute the same as follows:
Liability 50/50
I now award damages as follows:
a. Pain and suffering Ksh 50,000
b. Loss of expectation of life Ksh 100,000
c. Loss of dependency Ksh 1,314,240
d. Special damages Ksh 34,800
sub total Ksh 1,499,040
Less 50% contribution Ksh 749,540.
Each party to bear their own costs in the appeal while the respondents will have full costs and interest in the lower court. It is so ordered.
READ AND PUBLISHED IN THE CTS THIS 7TH SEPTEMBER 2026 IN THE PRESENCE OF:
NO APPEARANCE BY EITHER PARTY
BEFORE HON JUSTICE JOYCE GANDANI
By a plaint dated 6th April 2022 the respondent sued the appellant for
a. General damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act
b. Special damages Ksh 67,550.
c. Costs and interest.
The defense entered appearance and filed a statement of defense dated 17th May 2022.
The matter proceeded for full hearing. The trial court on 30th June 2023 entered judgement for the respondent against the appellant in the following terms:
- Liability 100%
- Pain and suffering Ksh 50,000
- Loss of expectation of life Ksh 100, 000
- Loss of dependency Ksh 12,522.70 * 12 * 35 * 1/3 = 1,703,087.20
- Special damages Ksh 34,800
Total Ksh 1,887,887.20
The respondent was also granted the costs of the suit and interest.
The appellant being dissatisfied with this judgement lodged this appeal. In the memorandum of appeal dated 18th of December 2023 they indicated the grounds of appeal to be:
1. That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact misdirected himself in law, principle and facts when he misapprehended and misunderstood the applicable principles and the law in assessing quantum thereby arriving at an award that is manifestly and inordinately high as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate of damages in the circumstances of the case.
2. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by arriving at a finding on liability which went against the weight of the evidence.
3. The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by making a finding in favour of the respondent when they had not proved their case on a balance of probabilities.
4. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding the respondent a global sum of Ksh 1,887 887.20 damages under the Fatal Accidents Act which award was too excessive in this circumstances.
5. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in adopting a multiplier of 34 years when calculating the claim for loss of dependency, which multiplier was high considering the age of the deceased person and the vagaries and uncertainties of life.
6. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding the respondent a sum of Ksh 100,000 as damages under the Law Reform Act which award was too excessive in the circumstances.
7. The learned magistrate erred in law by failing to deduct the damages awarded under the Law reforms Act from the total award.
8. The learned magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding the respondent Ksh 50,000 being pain and suffering which award was too excessive in the circumstances.
9. The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to accord due regard to the appellant's submissions and authorities on quantum on applicable principles for assessment of damages.
Parties then filed written submissions.
APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS
They are dated 27th October 2025. They formulated the matters for determination to be:
a. Whether the trial court erred in its findings on general damages.
b. Who should bear the costs of the appeal.
On quantum they submitted as hereunder:
- Pain and suffering. The deceased died on the same day of the accident therefore the award of 20,000 is reasonable.
- Loss of expectation of life. The deceased was 23 years old at the time of his demise. The court awarded a sum of Ksh 100,000. They submitted that this figure is modest and they have no issue with it.
- Loss of dependency. The plaintiff's witness statement said that the deceased was her son and was a casual laborer. In court she testified that the deceased was a driver and earned Ksh 20,000. In the judgement the court awarded damages and assumed the deceased was a blacksmith earning Ksh 25,000. There was no contract, no employer confirmation and no oral evidence to prove that the deceased had any stable income. Their contention was that the court should have applied a global award instead of using the multiplicand - multiplier approach. This is because the estate of the deceased did not offer any documentary evidence to prove income. They proposed a global sum of 1 million for loss of dependency. They relied on the following authorities:
1. Karaike versus Munene (suing as the legal administrator of the estate of Peris Wanjiru Mugo (deceased) (2024) KEHC 6808 KLR.
2. Geoffrey Obiero and another versus Kenya Power & Lighting Corporation Limited and another (2019) KEHC 1543 KLR
However, should the court find that the global approach is not suitable they submitted as follows:
- Multiplicand. This is the annual income multiplied by a suitable multiplier of expected working life lost by the disease by the premature death and father by a factor of dependency ratio that is the ratio of the deceased's income utilized on his dependents. Under the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order 2018 the minimum basic wage exclusive of housing allowance for Mavoko, Ruiru and Limuru is Ksh 12,550.
- Multiplier. The deceased was aged 23 years and is alleged to have worked either as a driver or casual laborer. No contract of employment or any document has been filed to confirm that he was indeed in employment at the time of his death. The vicissitudes of life however do potentially curtail such working. They contended that the court should not therefore mechanically adopt a mathematical approach as it will be a plastic and unreflective of the reality of life where a person's journey is fraught with many uncertainties. They proposed that the court adopts a multiplier of 25 years which is reasonable considering the vicissitude and vagaries of life.
- Dependency ratio. Since the deceased was not married a dependency ratio of 1/3 would suffice. The computation for loss of expectation of life will therefore be: Ksh 12,500 * 12 * 25 * 1/3 which is equal Ksh 1,255,000
- They indicated they have no issue with the award for special damages.
DOUBLE COMPENSATION.
The submitted that where a claimant gets awards for loss of life both under the Law Reform Act and in the Fatal Accidents Act the former should be deducted from the latter. They relied on the case of Transpares Kenya Limited and another versus SMM (suing as legal representative for and on behalf of the estate of EMM deceased (2015) eKLR
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
They are dated 3rd March 2026. They submitted under the following heads on quantum of damages:
PAIN AND SUFFERING: it was their submission that the award made by the trial court was a conventional award and cannot be said to be excessive. They relied on the case of Acceller Global Logistics versus Gladys Nasambu Waswa and another (2020) eKLR where the court awarded a sum of Ksh 50,000 for pain and suffering where the deceased died immediately after the accident.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: they submitted that it is undisputed that the deceased was at the material time working and earned a living which he used to support his dependants. Even the death certificate states that the deceased was a businessman at the time of his death. PW1 testified that the deceased was a driver at the material time which was a clarification from her statement which erroneously indicated that he was a casual laborer at the time. The absence of proof of the deceased's earnings in the form of receipts cannot be construed to mean he was not working for gain. They urged the court to apply a minimum wage as a multiplicand. The deceased worked as a driver within Mavoko township and under the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order 2018 his salary would be Ksh 16,428.
On the multiplier to be applied it was stated that the deceased died at the age of 23 years and was of sound health. He would have worked till the age of 70 so the court’s decision to order a multiplier of 34 is well founded, justified and not too high in light of comparable authorities. The dependency ratio of 1/3 as adopted by the trial court is not disputed.
They urged the court to vary the judgement as follows
Ksh 16,428 * 12 * 1/3 * 34 = Ksh 2,234,208
In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, they suggested that in the event the court is persuaded to adopt the global sum then the trial court award can be rectified to be Ksh 3 million. They relied on the following authorities:
- County Government of Kitui and another verses Mutinda and another (sued as the administrators of the estate of Samson Kyalo (2023) KEHC 19,406 KLR
- Kidiga and another versus Onguna and another (suing as the administrator of the estate of Elvis Omondi Otieno - deceased (Civil Appeal E100 or 2024) (2025) KEHC 10,525 KLR
Since this is a first appeal, I am required to evaluate the entire evidence on record, draw my own inferences and conclusions, and interfere with the trial court's findings only if they are based on no evidence, a misapprehension of evidence or if the court applied a wrong principle of law (Selle & another vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited and others (1968) EA 123 at page 126; Peters versus Sunday Post Limited (1958) EA 424
Brief facts
The claim emanated from a road traffic accident that occurred on 27th August 2020 whereby the deceased, Josphat Masili Kivuva who was allegedly traveling as a passenger on board motor vehicle registration number kbv 840F along Mlolongo - Katani road when the vehicle's owner or his driver so negligently drove, managed and or controlled the said motor vehicle at a high speed that he lost control of the motor vehicle and caused and or permitted it to veer off the road and throw the deceased from the moving motor vehicle as a result of which the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and succumbed to the same.
The following witnesses testified in court.
PW1 Jane Kivuva relied on her statement which indicated that she had been called by a good samaritan and was informed of this accident. The deceased was her son who had died following this accident. On cross-examination she stated that the deceased used to work as a driver and she depended on him as he used to pay school fees for his siblings.
PW2 Cpl Amdany from Athi River police station. He confirmed that this accident occurred on 27th August 2020 at about 0800 hours and that after an autopsy was conducted the deceased's family was issued with a police abstract. He stated that the deceased was a passenger and the scene was visited. During cross-examination he confirmed that he was not that investigating officer and was not involved in the investigations.
The plaintiff's case was then closed.
DW1 Paul Ndichu Maina said that he was the driver of the motor vehicle KBV 840F owned by the defendant. On the material day he was on his way to deliver ballast to another company at Katani. He had given a lift to some passengers and on the way he was stopped by a motorcycle rider who informed him that he had hit someone. He went and checked and discovered that someone had fallen off the motor vehicle without his knowledge and had died from the fall. He explained that he had not been aware that someone had hitchhiked on top of the lorry.
The defense case was then closed.
What is for determination is:
- Liability
- Quantum of damages.
I must comment that despite the fact that liability was one of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant's submissions appear to only dwell on the issue of quantum. They totally ignored the issue of liability. I will still determine the issue of liability.
LIABILITY
The plaintiff PW1 did not witness the accident and therefore did not know how the accident occurred. DW1, the driver of the motor vehicle told the court that he had been instructed to deliver ballast to another company at Katani. He had carried some passengers and was stopped by a motorcycle rider who informed him that someone had fallen off the motor vehicle he was driving. He claimed that he did not know that someone had hitch hiked on top of the motor vehicle at the time. It is clear from this evidence that the deceased had been traveling on top of the ballast at the back of the motor vehicle. Though the driver claimed that he was not aware that someone had hitch hiked at the back of the lorry, I find that there is a probability he could have been aware. The deceased exposed himself to great danger by riding on top of the ballast. For this reason I find the deceased and the driver to be both liable for this accident. I now apportion liability at 50% against the appellant and 50% against the deceased.
QUANTUM
DAMAGES UNDER THE LAW REFORM ACT
Pain and suffering.
The deceased died on the same day of the accident. The court awarded Ksh 50,000 for pain and suffering. I uphold this award.
DAMAGES UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT.
Loss of expectation of life.
The appellant has not contested the Ksh 100,000 given here. The same is therefore upheld.
Loss of dependency.
The deceased was 23 years old at the time of the accident. The plaintiff stated that he was the deceased's mother and that the deceased worked as a driver earning Ksh 20,000. No document was availed to prove this income. The court has been urged to use the minimum wage for drivers in the Mavoko area as provided under the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order of 2018 which was Ksh 16,428.
In the case of Beatrice Wangui Thairu vs Hon Ezekiel Barngetuny & another Nairobi HCCC 1638 of 1988 (UR) the court stated:
“The principles applicable to an assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act are all too clear. The court must in the first instance find out the value of the annual dependency. Such value is usually called the multiplicand. In determining the same, the important figure is the net earnings of the deceased. The court should then multiply the multiplicand by a reasonable figure representing so many years purchase. In choosing the said figure, usually called the multiplier, the court must bear in mind the expectation of earning life of the deceased, the expectation of life and dependency of the dependants and the chances of life of the diseased and the dependants.”
In Leonard Elisa vs Major Virgen (2005) eKLR the court started that in determining the right multiplier, the right approach is to consider the age of the deceased, the balance of earning life, the age of the dependant, the life expected, length of dependency, the vicissitudes of life and factor accelerated by payment in lump sum.”
The deceased being a young man was expected to be setting up his life and would have used probably just a third of his salary on his mother. The appellant has also not disputed the ratio of a third being the dependency ratio. I will adopt this ratio.
On the multiplier to be used what I have considered is the probable number of years the mother would have depended on the deceased and not how many years the deceased would have worked generally. The age of the mother is not clear from the documents that have been availed. I will therefore adopt a multiplier of 20 years. The loss of dependency therefore would work out as hereunder:
16,428 * 12 * 20 * ⅓
= Ksh 1,314,240
Special damages of Ksh 34,800 were not disputed by the appellant.
From the foregoing the appeal succeeds. I hearby set aside the lower court's judgement in CMCC number E350 of 2022 and substitute the same as follows:
Liability 50/50
I now award damages as follows:
a. Pain and suffering Ksh 50,000
b. Loss of expectation of life Ksh 100,000
c. Loss of dependency Ksh 1,314,240
d. Special damages Ksh 34,800
sub total Ksh 1,499,040
Less 50% contribution Ksh 749,540.
Each party to bear their own costs in the appeal while the respondents will have full costs and interest in the lower court. It is so ordered.
READ AND PUBLISHED IN THE CTS THIS 7TH SEPTEMBER 2026 IN THE PRESENCE OF:
NO APPEARANCE BY EITHER PARTY
BEFORE HON JUSTICE JOYCE GANDANI