KALONDU KINYUMU VS WILSON NDOLO MUTWIWA AND KILONZO KINJA

1. On 19/11/2021, the learned trial court in Kilungu PMCC No.  119  of  2019  delivered  a  judgment   making  the  following   award:-
Liability   - 100% against   the    defendant   
General   damages    - 2,300,000
Special   damages - 113,850
2. Aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant   brought    this appeal on the grounds   that the learned   trial magistrate erred in awarding general    damage   of Kshs.  2,300,000  which  were  so  inordinately    low considering   the  injuries  sustained  by  the plaintiff/appellant  and  the  award of  permanent   disability  at  60%   that  the  court  erred  in failing    to award   future  medical  expenses  and  expenses   for  artificial  prosthesis,  and for  diminished    earning   capacity,  that the  court   erred  in  finding  that the appellant  had  not pleaded  for loss  of  earning  capacity,  and for  failing  to consider  the  appellant,   submissions  and authorities.
3. The    appellant    seeks   from   this    - that  the  appeal  be  allowed, that  the court    re-assess  the  awards  in   light  of  the  severity  of  the  injuries,  time  lapse  and inflation,  and make  an award  for future  medical  costs,   cost of  artificial  prosthesis,  loss  of  earning    capacity  diminished  capacity  and  award  the appellant  costs  of the appeal.
4. To  support  her  appeal  counsel  for the appellant  Gesare  Oginda  &  Co   filed  written submissions  in which  he  summed  the  fact  of  the  case,  that the  appellant   was  a fare  paying  passenger  in motor  vehicle   registration  no  KBW  193   belonging    to  the  1st   defendant    and  driven   by  the   2nd  defendant  respondent -  and the  same     was  involved  in  an  road traffic accident on 27/4/2017.  The appellant   sustained injuries as evidenced by     the report    by Dr.  Wokabi   dated  23/7/2019 indicating the following injuries;
i. Severe crush    injuries   to the left    leg leading to amputation at the level   below   the knee. 
ii. Lacerations  of  the face &  tongue
iii. Blunt    soft  tissue  injuries  of the chest & back  &  elbow
5. The injuries    were classified   as grievous    harm, 60% per permanent disability.
6. Counsel submitted that they     submitted   for the award   of Kshs.  3,000,000  general   damage   before  the trial  court  on  account  of    the  severity  of  the  injury  . 
7. It  was submitted  that the authorities  submitted  in the lower   court  for  similar  injuries  were  for  awards  above  Kshs.  2,500,000.  That   the court  was  bound  to  make  comparable  award  for    comparable   injuries as was stated in   Odinga  Jackson  Ouma  vs  Maureen  Achieng  Odera [2016] eKLR;  that  the  court  did  not  consider  the  60%  disability   award,  inflation,  passage  of  time    e.t.c  as  was stated   in Nyambati  Nyaswabu  Eric vs Toyota Kenya  Ltd &  2 others[2019] eKLR. 
8.  On  the   principles  to be considered  in a  claim  for  loss of  earning   capacity  the   appellant  relied  on  Butler  v  Butler [1984]  eKLR  and  that  even   without   documentary  evidence    the  trial  court  could  have  awarded   a  global   sum/used   the  measure  of the wage  of  a  general  laborer; see  Nelson  Ritari vs  CMC Group  Ltd  [2015]  eKLR  and  Jacob  Ayiga Maruja  & Another vs  Simeon  Obayo  [2005]  eKLR  among  other  cited  authorities.
9.   This    court was urged to make a reasonable      award on loss of earnings. 
10. For respondent the firm of Kimondo   Gachoka & Co.    filed  submission  and submitted  that  the only  issue  for determination  on the  appeal  was  quantum. 
11. It  is  submitted  the  respondent  was relying  on the  submissions    made     before   the lower  court;  and   that the appellant  did  not   plead   or  prove   on  the cost   of the artificial   prosthesis   and replacement ,  or  loss of earning   capacity  in  her  plaint,  and  that  the trial  court  was  correct  in  refusing  the awards .
12. It  is  submitted  that  parties  are bound  by their  pleadings  and  this position  is  settled   as  can  be gleaned  from numerous authorities, the  Court  of Appeal in  IEBC  &  Anor  Vs  Stephen  Mutinda Mule  &  3  others [2014]  eKLR  Daniel  Otieno   Migore   Vs   Sony  Sugar  Co.  Ltd    [2018] eKLR  &  Raila  Amolo  Odinga  &  Anor  Vs IEBC &  2  others  [2017]  eKLR.
13. On  the  award   made  by  the   subordinate   court,  this  court  was  reminded  of  the settled  position  that  an appellate  court  will be slow  to  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  discretion by the trial  court – the principles  are  laid  out in  Ann  Kanja   Kithinji (Suing  as the legal  representative of the estate of  Patrick  Koome(deceased) citing Kemfro  Africa  Ltd   t/a   Meru   Express  Service vs AMM Lubia  &  Anor (1982-1988) I KAR 777.
14. It is   the respondent’s   position that the award was inordinately high and ought to be reviewed    downwards. 
15. To   support  this   position  the respondent  cited  2 case    which  involved  the amputation  of  the leg  and awards of Ksh  1,300,000  &  Kshs. 1,500,000  was  made;  these  are quoted    in  Monyoro  Mong’are   Shem  &  Another vs  Timothy Mogaka  Nyagaka [2021]  eKLR    and  Kukawa  Industries  Ltd    Vs  Dama  Kiti  &  Anor  [2017]eKLR the court   awarded    Kshs.  2,000,000  for  similar   injuries     in  this  case 
16. Also Charles    Kiplang’at Koech    V Benard  Ngeitch   [2021] eKLR where   an award  of   Kshs.  1,800,000 was made   for an injury   that involved    amputation of the leg. 
17. This court is urged to review the award to Kshs.  1,500,000 dismiss the appeal with costs to the   respondent. 
18. From   the  submissions  the  only  issue  for  determination is  whether  this  court  has  any  ground   to  disturb  the  award   by  the  subordinate   court. 
19. I  begin  with the pleadings -  The  Plaintiff’s   claim   was  brought   before  the subordinate court via  a plaint dated   2/9/2019  at  para  7  it  is  pleaded that    the plaintiff  sustained  the  following  injuries -  severe   crash  injuries  with  amputation of the  left leg  below   the knee,    multiple   fractures  of the  foot metatarsals, lacerations  of  the   tongue  and face,   blunt   soft  tissue  injuries  of the  chest,  back,  left elbow. 
20. She  pleaded  that  she  required     the use  of  an artificial  leg  which  would  cost  Kshs.  250,000   and would last for 5 years.  She sought   the cost of an artificial leg   over the years. 
21. She  also  pleaded    that she  was unable    to  work  -  and  claimed    damages  for  loss  of   earning   capacity  or  diminished  earning    capacity -   that  she  was  a  business lady  who  earned  Kshs.  5,000    per  day  at  105,000  pm,  had  not   earned   from  April 2017 -  to  August 2019  -  she  sought  damages  as she would  have   worked up to 70  years  (she  was  46  at  the  time of  the  accident). 
22. She sought  judgment    against  the    defendant’s inter alia   for pain  suffering   and loss  of  amenities,   cost of artificial  limb over  the years,  loss of  earnings,  before, after  trial,  before  and  after   judgment;   diminished/loss    of  earning  capacity. 
23. The plaint  was  accompanied    by  a  witness  statement, the medical  report, which  indicated  that  she would    require  a  “versatile  prosthesis” at  Kshs.  250,000 to be changed   every 5 years.
24. In the  defence    dated  13/11/2019  the  defendants  denied  the  claims   and put  the plaintiff  to strict  proof   thereof. 
25. The matter    was heard orally.  The plaintiff  testified   -  produced  her  documents,  the  medical  report  was produced  by  consent,  and the defendant  did  not    call any evidence . 
26. The plaintiff    submitted    for general  damage   at  Kshs. 3,000,000  citing  cases  the  most  recent  being  John    Kipkemboi  &  Anor   Vs  Morris Kedolo  [2019] eKLR where  the sum of  Kshs.  2,500,000 was awarded    for similar    injuries. 
27. The   defendant submitted  on the medical  report  -  that  the plaintiff   chose  not  to  call  the doctor,  that   the doctor did not produce any    quotation  to prove  the  alleged  Kshs.  250,000 for the prosthesis. 
28. On general damage they submit   on    Kshs.  1,000,000 relying  on  Charles  Oriwo  Odeyo  vs Apollo  Justus Andabwa  &  Another [2017 eKLR,  Boniface  Waiti & Anor  vs  Michael  Kariuki  Kamau [2007]  eKLR  where  the judge  awarded   Kshs. 800,000  for  Kshs.  450,000    for an amputation below   the knee.
29. On  future     medical   expenses  it  was submitted   that there  was  no  justification  for the amount  submitted     -  citing   Wambaira  &  17 others vs  Kigora  &  2 others [2004]eKLR;  Kigaraari  vs  Aya   (1982 -  1988) I KAR 768 -  to    the  effect  that    damages   must  be  within   limits    set  by precedents; Cecilia  Mwangi  & Anor  vs Ruth  Mwangi   Civil Appeal no.  251/1996 – to  the effect  that money cannot  renew  a battered, shattered  physical  frame  and judges  can only make  what  are  regarded  as reasonable compensation.
30. On loss   of earning     capacity it is submitted   that the claim   at Kshs.  5,000  pm    was  not  proved   -   and that  the damages on that head was  awarded  as  part  of  general   damages  -  see Henry Moriasi  Osiemo  vs Quid  J Mohammed  & Merrali  Mfadhuli [2001]  eKLR .
31. Let us turn to the  lower  court  judgment.  With respect    to the  artificial  prosthesis  -  the  learned   trial  court   held  that  the appellant  had  not  pleaded   the same.   The court  said  “if the same  had  been pleaded  by the plaintiff and taking a  look  at  the medical report,  the same  was deserved  if  the plaintiff had  pleaded  for the same  I would  have  awarded Kshs. 750.000.”
32. I note    that the same was pleaded, the sum of Kshs.  250,000   was  pleaded   at  para 7  of the plaint,  and there  is  prayer  for  cost  of  artificial  limb.  I do not   know  why  the  trial court  stated  it  was not  pleaded  -  it  was pleaded,    the medical report that  made  the proposition  was not  challenged  and was produced   by consent.  There is  no dispute  that she  sustained  serious  injuries,  no     dispute  that    the leg  was amputated  and  she  would  need  a  prosthesis  limb,  I  find   that  the same  was pleaded,  the  same  was proved   and    award the  sum  of  Kshs. 500,000  for   the  same . 
33. Regarding loss/diminished earning capacity - the plaintiff   pleaded   Kshs.  5,000 incomes per day but produced no evidence of the same.  The trial court was right to find that the plaintiff had not proved the claim as alleged.  The submission that the court  could  have  applied  the global  sum award is not tenable. It  is    the  plaintiff  who  pleaded   that she  was making  Kshs.  5,000 per day, Kshs.  105,000 pm -  she  had the  duty  to prove  that  claim  even on  a  balance    of  probability.  She did   not do so.   There was no error in the finding   by the lower court.
34. On issue    of  General  Damages  -  the  trial court  assessed  the  general   damages  as  per the cited    authorities  and arrived   at  Kshs.  2,300,000. This in in my  view  was  a  reasonable  exercise  of  discretion   of  the trial  court. 
35. Hence  in the circumstances it is my finding that   liability   was not  in  issue and  remains  100%
36. The appeal succeeds in part and the Judgment of the subordinate court is set aside and substituted by the following award:
General damages: up held at Kshs.  2,300,000 
Artificial limb at Kshs.  500,000
Special damages - upheld  at Ksh 113,850
Total -      Kshs.  2,300,000
     Kshs.      500,000
     Kshs.      113,850
     Kshs.  2,913,850
The appellant will have   costs   and interest   - from the date of the judgment   in subordinate court.

Dated, signed and delivered vis CTS on 20th August 2024

Mumbua T Matheka

Judge