(Being an appeal arising from the decree emanating from the Judgment of Hon. D.M. Ireri, Principal Magistrate delivered on 3/5/2023 in Maricho MC CC No. 129 of 2022).
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal herein by way of the memorandum dated 24/5/2023 arises from the trial court judgment delivered on 3/5/2023. The appeal is only on assessment of damages on loss of dependency. It is the appellant’s case as per the grounds of appeal that the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in the manner, he assessed damages on loss of dependency by adopting the global sum approach awarding the respondent KShs 1,200,000/= despite the respondents failing to prove dependency as required under section 4(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act (Cap. 32) Laws of Kenya.
2. The respondent herein sued the appellant for compensation for special and general damages under the Law Reform Act (Cap. 26) Laws of Kenya for the benefit of the estate of the late Mercy Wairimu Mwaura (the deceased) and under the Fatal Accidents Act (Cap. 32) Laws of Kenya for the benefit of the dependents of the deceased. The deceased was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle when the same was involved in an accident with the appellant’s motor vehicle registration number KCB 425E on 9/2/2022 at around 10.30 a.m. along Makutano-Sagana road at Makutano township. She succumbed to the injuries.
3. Judgement on liability was entered by consent of the parties in the ratio of 85:15 for the respondent against the appellant.
4. The appellant therefore prays to this court to allow the appeal, set aside the trial court’s assessment for loss of dependency.
5. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions filed by learned counsels for both parties.
6. This being a first appeal, the duty of this court is to re-evaluate, re-analyze and re-consider the evidence and draw its own conclusions, bearing in mind that it did not see witnesses testifying and therefore give due allowance for that. This is the position as held in Selle & another vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & others [1968] E.A at page 126 on a first appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal that:
“An appeal to this Court from a trial by the High 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. In particular, this court is not bound necessarily to follow the trial judge’s findings of fact if it appears either that he has clearly failed on some point to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities materially to estimate the evidence or if the impression based on the demeanor of a witness is inconsistent with the evidence in the case generally (Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan (1955), 22 E.A.C.A. 270)”.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant raised one issue for this court’s determination, that is, whether the trial court award of KShs 1,200,000/= using the global sum approach for loss of dependence was excessive in the circumstances.
Analysis and Determination
8. In civil proceedings, proof of an issue is on a balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. The standard of proof on a balance of probabilities has been explained in various decisions. Justice Mativo (as he then was) in Hellen Wangari Wangechi v Carumera Muthini Gathua [2005] eKLR referred to the decision of Lord Denning in Miller v Minister of Pensions [1942] 2 ALL ER 372 which states that:
“The … (standard of proof) … is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability…If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say ‘we think it more probable than not’ the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not.”
9. In the case of Re H (minors) sexual abuse; standard of proof {1996} AC 563 The House of Lords laid down a series of guiding principles on standard of proof as follows:
a) Where the matters in issue are facts, the standard of proof required in non-criminal proceedings is the preponderance of probability, usually referred to as the balance of probability.
b) The balance of probability standard means that the Court must be satisfied that the event in question is more likely than not to have occurred.
c) The balance of probability standard is a flexible standard. This means that when assessing this probability, the Court will assume that some things are inherently more likely than others.”
10. The standard of proof in civil cases was discussed in the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal 15 of 2016, Samuel Ndegwa Waithaka v Agnes Wangui Mathenge & 2 others [2017] [eKLR]. The Court while referring to Lord Nicholls in the Case above observed that in civil cases such as this case, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This standard means that a court is satisfied that an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. In H (Minors) [1966] AC 563 at pg 586, Lord Nicholls explained that the test on the balance of probabilities was flexible. The learned Judge said,
“When assessing the probabilities, the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability.”
11. The principles under which an appellate court may interfere with an award of quantum made by a lower court were stated in Kemfro Africa Limited T/A Meru Express Services & Gathongo Kanini Vs A.M. Lubia & Olive Lubia (1982-88) I KAR 727 at page 730, Kneller J.A. stated:
“The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied that either the judge, in assessing the damages took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one or that; short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage. See Ilango V Manyoka [1967] E.A. 705, 709, 713; Lukenya Ranching and Farming Cooperative Society Limited Vs Kalovoto [1970] E.A. 414, 418, 419. This court follows the same principles.”
12. Similarly, in the case of Butt v Khan (1982 -1988) 1 KAR the court pronounced itself as follows:
“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.”
13. I am aware that assessment of damages is at the discretion of the trial court.
14. It must be remembered that dependency is a matter of fact which must be proved by evidence. In the case of Abdalla Rubeya Hemed v Kayuma Mvurya & Another [2017] eKLR that:-
“Dependency is always a matter of fact to be proved by evidence. It is not that the deceased earned a sum and therefore must have devoted a portion or part of it to his dependence. Rather the claimant must give some evidence to show that he was dependent upon the deceased and to what extent.”
15. The court must therefore find as a fact that there were dependents of the deceased before embarking on the determination of the award of dependency.
16. The trial court adopted a most unconventional manner of disposing of such a case. There was no hearing. Not even calling of a single witness to produce as exhibits the documents annexed to the plaint. It simply adopted the consent of the parties filed dated 15/3/2023 in which it was provided that the documents would be produced as exhibits. There was no affidavit accompanying such production of documents. What if, in fact there was no witness at all to produce those documents, would a consent give them legal status of exhibits? Even the witness statement must be properly adopted after a witness had identified it as his or hers upon oath. Otherwise, the possibility of a court dealing with a phantom case is not far-fetched.
17. Be that as it may, Susan Muthoni Wairimu, one of the plaintiffs wrote in her witness statement that she was the daughter of the deceased. The deceased left behind 3 children aged 44, 37 and 36 years old respectively. She was healthy and living a happy robust life at the time of the accident. She was engaged in business of selling tomatoes and making a sum of KShs 20,000/= per month. She would support her, the deceased’s sons and five grandchildren who depended on her entirely for their upkeep as they were jobless.
18. I am satisfied from this unchallenged evidence that it is proof of dependency. It is not unusual in this country to see senior citizens of advanced age beyond 70 years old who are in good health tilling their farms and others selling wares especially farm produce at the local market. With that income, they sustain themselves and support members of their families. No doubt when their lives are cut short through an accident, that source of income for the family is also cut out. I agree with the finding of the High Court in the case cited by learned counsels for both the appellant and the respondent of Peter Wainaina & another v Lucia Ndulu Muindi & another [2021] KEHC 1986 (KLR), where the court considering the case of a deceased who was aged 60 years and had left behind all adult children held that:
“…the fact of the children of the deceased being adults, alone does not mean that there can be no dependency, as a wife and even adult children, can still be dependents and the award of dependency herein cannot thus be faulted.”
19. In the case of Lucy Wangui Maina (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Alice Wanjiku Maina v Harrison Thuku Kamau & another [2020] eKLR the High Court on appeal, while considering the issue of loss of dependency for a deceased who was aged 70 years said
“…the deceased was aged 70 years. She was a farmer. There was no documentary evidence of her average earnings. The claim that she earned Kshs 15,000 was just that. But she certainly earned a living and it was open to the trial court, granted the circumstances, to settle on the multiplicand of Kshs 3,000. I refuse to substitute my discretion with that of the learned the trial magistrate.
Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 years was quite reasonable.”
20. In this case, I am satisfied that the deceased made some earning and supported her family to that extend and would have continued to do so were she alive. This evidence, as the parties consented to call it, was not challenged. Where evidence is not challenged and it is reasonable on a balance of probability, the court will take it as it is.
21. At the trial both counsels proposed to adopt the global sum approach in the assessment of loss of dependency. In their submissions, the appellant proposed a sum of KShs 300,000/= while the respondent proposed a sum of KShs 1,200,000/=.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the case of Dora Mwawandu Samuel (Suing on her behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Samuel Muweliani Jumamosi - Deceased) v Shabir M. Hassan [2021] KEHC 8665 (KLR) where a 59-year old deceased’s estate was awarded KShs 400,000/= for loss of dependency in 2021 and John Wamae & 2 others v Jane Kituku Nziva & another [2017] KEHC 1111 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal awarded a global sum of KShs 400,000/= to a 61-year-old deceased’s estate in 2017.
23. The respondents on their part relied on the cases of Moses Maina Waweru v Esther Wanjiru Githae (Suing as the personal representative of the Estate of the late David Githae Kiririo Taiti [2022] KEHC 1430 (KLR) where the deceased died aged 68 years and the High Court reduced an award by the lower court to the estate of the deceased from KShs 2,000,000/= to KShs 800,000/=in 2022. The second was the case of Naman Kailibi Meme v M’Ncebere M’Ekotha (Sued as the legal administrator of the estate of FN-Deceased) [2022] KEHC 2152 (KLR) where the High Court reduced an award of KShs 2,000,000/= by the lower court to KShs 800,000/= in 2022 for the estate of a deceased who died aged 52 years.
24. As can be seen, the awards seem to be as varied as there are different judges. However, the principle of assessment of damages is that similar cases should attract similar awards.
25. Learned counsels have maintained the same authorities they relied upon in the lower court with learned counsel for the appellant adding the case of Peter Wainaina & Another where the deceased was aged 65 years at the time of death and his last-born child was aged 18 years and the court awarded a sum of KShs 500,000/= for loss of dependency using the global sum approach.
26. The awards range between 400,000/= for a 59-year-old farmer in 2021 to KShs 800,000/= for a 68-year-old in 2022. All the cases are recent as they were decided less than 5 years ago.
27. The learned trial magistrate said that he had considered the issue of inflation rate which he did not specify. He offered no reason why he went far beyond the KShs 800,000/= that the superior courts had awarded in recent years. In the case of Penina Waithira Kaburu v LP [2019] eKLR, the Court outlined factors that should guide a Court in arriving at the correct estimate of quantum of damages. It held:
“While no injuries occurring in different circumstances can be similar in every respect and hence the possibility of varied awards in general damages, the trial court must always make a comparative analysis of the injuries sustained and the extent of the awards made for similar injuries in previous decisions. As I have stated elsewhere, if not for anything else, the comparison is necessary for purposes of certainty and uniformity; the award, must, as far as possible, be comparable to any other award made in a previous case where the injuries for which the award are relatively similar.”
28. Whereas this authority is on the general principles applicable to assessment of general damages for injuries, I believe it applies equally to cases of deceased persons. Here, age is considered as a prime factor, especially where the global sum approach is adopted as was the case herein.
29. Consequently, I find that the trial court’s award of KShs. 1,200,000/= in damages for loss of dependency based on the global sum approach was inordinately high. The same is therefore for setting aside as I hereby do and substitute it with an award of KShs 800,000/= for loss of dependency.
30. The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant.
31. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered on the Virtual Platform, Teams this 23rd day of May 2025.
ANDAYI W. F.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Masudi (Ms) for Appellant.
Momanyi for the Respondent.
Job: Court Assistant.
This decision is uploaded on the Judiciary Case Tracking System for immediate access by the parties upon upload.
ANDAYI W. F.
JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal herein by way of the memorandum dated 24/5/2023 arises from the trial court judgment delivered on 3/5/2023. The appeal is only on assessment of damages on loss of dependency. It is the appellant’s case as per the grounds of appeal that the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in the manner, he assessed damages on loss of dependency by adopting the global sum approach awarding the respondent KShs 1,200,000/= despite the respondents failing to prove dependency as required under section 4(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act (Cap. 32) Laws of Kenya.
2. The respondent herein sued the appellant for compensation for special and general damages under the Law Reform Act (Cap. 26) Laws of Kenya for the benefit of the estate of the late Mercy Wairimu Mwaura (the deceased) and under the Fatal Accidents Act (Cap. 32) Laws of Kenya for the benefit of the dependents of the deceased. The deceased was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle when the same was involved in an accident with the appellant’s motor vehicle registration number KCB 425E on 9/2/2022 at around 10.30 a.m. along Makutano-Sagana road at Makutano township. She succumbed to the injuries.
3. Judgement on liability was entered by consent of the parties in the ratio of 85:15 for the respondent against the appellant.
4. The appellant therefore prays to this court to allow the appeal, set aside the trial court’s assessment for loss of dependency.
5. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions filed by learned counsels for both parties.
6. This being a first appeal, the duty of this court is to re-evaluate, re-analyze and re-consider the evidence and draw its own conclusions, bearing in mind that it did not see witnesses testifying and therefore give due allowance for that. This is the position as held in Selle & another vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & others [1968] E.A at page 126 on a first appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal that:
“An appeal to this Court from a trial by the High 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. In particular, this court is not bound necessarily to follow the trial judge’s findings of fact if it appears either that he has clearly failed on some point to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities materially to estimate the evidence or if the impression based on the demeanor of a witness is inconsistent with the evidence in the case generally (Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan (1955), 22 E.A.C.A. 270)”.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant raised one issue for this court’s determination, that is, whether the trial court award of KShs 1,200,000/= using the global sum approach for loss of dependence was excessive in the circumstances.
Analysis and Determination
8. In civil proceedings, proof of an issue is on a balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. The standard of proof on a balance of probabilities has been explained in various decisions. Justice Mativo (as he then was) in Hellen Wangari Wangechi v Carumera Muthini Gathua [2005] eKLR referred to the decision of Lord Denning in Miller v Minister of Pensions [1942] 2 ALL ER 372 which states that:
“The … (standard of proof) … is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability…If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say ‘we think it more probable than not’ the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not.”
9. In the case of Re H (minors) sexual abuse; standard of proof {1996} AC 563 The House of Lords laid down a series of guiding principles on standard of proof as follows:
a) Where the matters in issue are facts, the standard of proof required in non-criminal proceedings is the preponderance of probability, usually referred to as the balance of probability.
b) The balance of probability standard means that the Court must be satisfied that the event in question is more likely than not to have occurred.
c) The balance of probability standard is a flexible standard. This means that when assessing this probability, the Court will assume that some things are inherently more likely than others.”
10. The standard of proof in civil cases was discussed in the Court of Appeal decision in Civil Appeal 15 of 2016, Samuel Ndegwa Waithaka v Agnes Wangui Mathenge & 2 others [2017] [eKLR]. The Court while referring to Lord Nicholls in the Case above observed that in civil cases such as this case, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This standard means that a court is satisfied that an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. In H (Minors) [1966] AC 563 at pg 586, Lord Nicholls explained that the test on the balance of probabilities was flexible. The learned Judge said,
“When assessing the probabilities, the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability.”
11. The principles under which an appellate court may interfere with an award of quantum made by a lower court were stated in Kemfro Africa Limited T/A Meru Express Services & Gathongo Kanini Vs A.M. Lubia & Olive Lubia (1982-88) I KAR 727 at page 730, Kneller J.A. stated:
“The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied that either the judge, in assessing the damages took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one or that; short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage. See Ilango V Manyoka [1967] E.A. 705, 709, 713; Lukenya Ranching and Farming Cooperative Society Limited Vs Kalovoto [1970] E.A. 414, 418, 419. This court follows the same principles.”
12. Similarly, in the case of Butt v Khan (1982 -1988) 1 KAR the court pronounced itself as follows:
“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.”
13. I am aware that assessment of damages is at the discretion of the trial court.
14. It must be remembered that dependency is a matter of fact which must be proved by evidence. In the case of Abdalla Rubeya Hemed v Kayuma Mvurya & Another [2017] eKLR that:-
“Dependency is always a matter of fact to be proved by evidence. It is not that the deceased earned a sum and therefore must have devoted a portion or part of it to his dependence. Rather the claimant must give some evidence to show that he was dependent upon the deceased and to what extent.”
15. The court must therefore find as a fact that there were dependents of the deceased before embarking on the determination of the award of dependency.
16. The trial court adopted a most unconventional manner of disposing of such a case. There was no hearing. Not even calling of a single witness to produce as exhibits the documents annexed to the plaint. It simply adopted the consent of the parties filed dated 15/3/2023 in which it was provided that the documents would be produced as exhibits. There was no affidavit accompanying such production of documents. What if, in fact there was no witness at all to produce those documents, would a consent give them legal status of exhibits? Even the witness statement must be properly adopted after a witness had identified it as his or hers upon oath. Otherwise, the possibility of a court dealing with a phantom case is not far-fetched.
17. Be that as it may, Susan Muthoni Wairimu, one of the plaintiffs wrote in her witness statement that she was the daughter of the deceased. The deceased left behind 3 children aged 44, 37 and 36 years old respectively. She was healthy and living a happy robust life at the time of the accident. She was engaged in business of selling tomatoes and making a sum of KShs 20,000/= per month. She would support her, the deceased’s sons and five grandchildren who depended on her entirely for their upkeep as they were jobless.
18. I am satisfied from this unchallenged evidence that it is proof of dependency. It is not unusual in this country to see senior citizens of advanced age beyond 70 years old who are in good health tilling their farms and others selling wares especially farm produce at the local market. With that income, they sustain themselves and support members of their families. No doubt when their lives are cut short through an accident, that source of income for the family is also cut out. I agree with the finding of the High Court in the case cited by learned counsels for both the appellant and the respondent of Peter Wainaina & another v Lucia Ndulu Muindi & another [2021] KEHC 1986 (KLR), where the court considering the case of a deceased who was aged 60 years and had left behind all adult children held that:
“…the fact of the children of the deceased being adults, alone does not mean that there can be no dependency, as a wife and even adult children, can still be dependents and the award of dependency herein cannot thus be faulted.”
19. In the case of Lucy Wangui Maina (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Alice Wanjiku Maina v Harrison Thuku Kamau & another [2020] eKLR the High Court on appeal, while considering the issue of loss of dependency for a deceased who was aged 70 years said
“…the deceased was aged 70 years. She was a farmer. There was no documentary evidence of her average earnings. The claim that she earned Kshs 15,000 was just that. But she certainly earned a living and it was open to the trial court, granted the circumstances, to settle on the multiplicand of Kshs 3,000. I refuse to substitute my discretion with that of the learned the trial magistrate.
Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 10 years was quite reasonable.”
20. In this case, I am satisfied that the deceased made some earning and supported her family to that extend and would have continued to do so were she alive. This evidence, as the parties consented to call it, was not challenged. Where evidence is not challenged and it is reasonable on a balance of probability, the court will take it as it is.
21. At the trial both counsels proposed to adopt the global sum approach in the assessment of loss of dependency. In their submissions, the appellant proposed a sum of KShs 300,000/= while the respondent proposed a sum of KShs 1,200,000/=.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the case of Dora Mwawandu Samuel (Suing on her behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Samuel Muweliani Jumamosi - Deceased) v Shabir M. Hassan [2021] KEHC 8665 (KLR) where a 59-year old deceased’s estate was awarded KShs 400,000/= for loss of dependency in 2021 and John Wamae & 2 others v Jane Kituku Nziva & another [2017] KEHC 1111 (KLR) where the Court of Appeal awarded a global sum of KShs 400,000/= to a 61-year-old deceased’s estate in 2017.
23. The respondents on their part relied on the cases of Moses Maina Waweru v Esther Wanjiru Githae (Suing as the personal representative of the Estate of the late David Githae Kiririo Taiti [2022] KEHC 1430 (KLR) where the deceased died aged 68 years and the High Court reduced an award by the lower court to the estate of the deceased from KShs 2,000,000/= to KShs 800,000/=in 2022. The second was the case of Naman Kailibi Meme v M’Ncebere M’Ekotha (Sued as the legal administrator of the estate of FN-Deceased) [2022] KEHC 2152 (KLR) where the High Court reduced an award of KShs 2,000,000/= by the lower court to KShs 800,000/= in 2022 for the estate of a deceased who died aged 52 years.
24. As can be seen, the awards seem to be as varied as there are different judges. However, the principle of assessment of damages is that similar cases should attract similar awards.
25. Learned counsels have maintained the same authorities they relied upon in the lower court with learned counsel for the appellant adding the case of Peter Wainaina & Another where the deceased was aged 65 years at the time of death and his last-born child was aged 18 years and the court awarded a sum of KShs 500,000/= for loss of dependency using the global sum approach.
26. The awards range between 400,000/= for a 59-year-old farmer in 2021 to KShs 800,000/= for a 68-year-old in 2022. All the cases are recent as they were decided less than 5 years ago.
27. The learned trial magistrate said that he had considered the issue of inflation rate which he did not specify. He offered no reason why he went far beyond the KShs 800,000/= that the superior courts had awarded in recent years. In the case of Penina Waithira Kaburu v LP [2019] eKLR, the Court outlined factors that should guide a Court in arriving at the correct estimate of quantum of damages. It held:
“While no injuries occurring in different circumstances can be similar in every respect and hence the possibility of varied awards in general damages, the trial court must always make a comparative analysis of the injuries sustained and the extent of the awards made for similar injuries in previous decisions. As I have stated elsewhere, if not for anything else, the comparison is necessary for purposes of certainty and uniformity; the award, must, as far as possible, be comparable to any other award made in a previous case where the injuries for which the award are relatively similar.”
28. Whereas this authority is on the general principles applicable to assessment of general damages for injuries, I believe it applies equally to cases of deceased persons. Here, age is considered as a prime factor, especially where the global sum approach is adopted as was the case herein.
29. Consequently, I find that the trial court’s award of KShs. 1,200,000/= in damages for loss of dependency based on the global sum approach was inordinately high. The same is therefore for setting aside as I hereby do and substitute it with an award of KShs 800,000/= for loss of dependency.
30. The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant.
31. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered on the Virtual Platform, Teams this 23rd day of May 2025.
ANDAYI W. F.
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Masudi (Ms) for Appellant.
Momanyi for the Respondent.
Job: Court Assistant.
This decision is uploaded on the Judiciary Case Tracking System for immediate access by the parties upon upload.
ANDAYI W. F.
JUDGE