REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT VIHIGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO E040 OF 2024
MALANG KOTIK BUSINESS MERCHANTS …………………. 1ST APPELLANT
KELVIN RUTO ………………………………..………………….... 2ND APPELLANT
WILLIAM KOMEN SOMOKWO ………………………….……… 3RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
DERRICK OBOTE MANAGU & ALLAN KINAGU MUNAVO (Suing as the
Legal Representatives of the Estate of HENRY OBOTE GALO
(Deceased)…………………………………………………………. 1st RESPONDENT
EZEKIEL MWANIKI ………………….…………………………. 2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon J. A. Agonda (SPM)
delivered at Vihiga in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No
189 of 2016 on 16th July 2024)
JUDGMENT
1. The background of this Appeal is that the 1st Respondent vide an amended
Plaint dated 28th March, 2017 sued the Appellants claiming general damages
(both under the Fatal Accident Act and The Law Reform Act) and special
damages in respect of the estate Henry Obote Galo) hereinafter referred to as
the deceased in respect of the Fatal injuries to the deceased sustained in a
road traffic accident which occurred on 21st April, 2016 along Kapsabet
Chavakali road involving a motor vehicle registration number KBJ 603D and
motor vehicle registration number KAS 427M in which the Plaintiff was
travelling as a lawful passenger when the vehicle was carelessly, negligently
and or recklessly driven at a high speed that it caused the vehicle to run into
a ditch thereby caused an accident as a result the Plaintiff/1st Respondent
suffered serious injuries.
1
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
2. The defendants entered appearance and filed a statement of defense in which
they denied virtually all the averments advanced by the Plaintiff.
3. In her decision of 16th July 2024, the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon J. A.
Agonda, Senior Principal Magistrate, entered Judgment in favor of the
Respondents as against the Appellants herein in the following terms: -
Pain and Suffering
Loss of expectation of life
Loss of dependency
Special Damages
Total
Kshs 50,000/=
Kshs 100,000/=
Kshs
640,000/=
Kshs 15, 830/=
Kshs 805,830/=
4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 15th August 2024, the Appellants
herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal of even date. They relied on five (5)
grounds of appeal. The grounds are captured as hereunder:
a. The quantum of general damages in respect of lost dependency is
inordinately high erroneous, oppressive and punitive and
amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
b. The Learned Trial Magistrate ignored and/or paid lip service to
the parties submissions on the multiplicand which she did not
analyze or consider at all.
c. The Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law when she applied the
multiplicand of Kshs. 10,000/= without any basis for such a
sum, nor any finding as to what the deceased did and earned,
and without any analysis of the issue of the multiplicand, and
thus applied a multiplicand unsupportable on the evidence and
2
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
submissions and simply plucked from the air, thereby reaching
an unreasonable high, capricious and arbitrary, unjust award.
d. The Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in completely
ignoring the submission made by the appellants and the 1st
Respondent that the applicable multiplicand was Kshs. 5,844
and proceeding to hold, without any evidence or precedent, that
the multiplicand was Kshs. 10,000/=.
e. The Learned Trial Magistrate failed to take into account all
relevant considerations and principles in assessing the quantum
of damages.
f. Other grounds as may be argued with the leave of the Court.
5. As at the time of writing this Judgment, the Appellants had not filed their
Written Submissions. The 1st Respondent’s Written Submissions were dated
and filed on 11th November 2025, which I have carefully read and considered.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
6. It is settled law that the duty of a first appellate court is to evaluate afresh the
evidence adduced before the trial court in order to arrive at its own
independent conclusion but bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the
witnesses testify.
7. This was aptly stated in the case of Selle & Another vs Associated Motor
Boat Co Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123 where the court therein held that the
appellate court was not bound by the findings of fact of the trial court but
that in re-considering and re-evaluating the evidence so as to draw its own
3
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
conclusions, it always had to bear in mind that it neither saw nor heard the
witnesses and thus make due allowance in that respect.
8. Having looked at the Grounds of Appeal and the 1st Respondent’s Written
Submissions, it appeared to this court that the only issue that had been
placed before it for determination was whether or not the quantum in respect
of damages under the loss of dependency that was awarded by the Trial Court
was excessive in the circumstances warranting interference by this court.
9. This court dealt with the said issue under the following separate and distinct
heads.
10.
DAMAGES UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
A. DEPENDENCY RATIO
The dependency ratio was not contested. This court did not disturb the
Trial Court’s dependency ratio of 2/3 as the deceased was married and had
two (2) children.
11.
B. MULTIPLIER
The multiplier was also not contested. This court, therefore, did not
disturb the Trial Court’s multiplier of eight (8) years considering the age of the
deceased, that was reasonable in the circumstances.
C. MULTIPLICAND
12. This was the only issue that was contested under loss of dependency. The 1st
Respondents placed reliance on the cases of Mercy Kirito Mugeti vs Beatrice
Nkatha Nyaga & 2 Others [2013]eKLR and Selle & Another vs Associated
Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others (Supra) on the duty of the first appellate court
4
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
and the cases of Butt vs Khan (1977) KAR 1 , Bashir Ahmed Butt vs Uwais
Ahmed Khan (1982)-88) and Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others vs Attorney
General [2016]eKLR where the common thread was that an appellate court
could only interfere with an award of damages if the aggrieved party satisfies
that the trial court took into account irrelevant factors or left out relevant
factors and that the amount of damages was so inordinately high or low that
the quantum awarded must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.
13. They argued that the Trial Court took into account the relevant factors being
the pleadings, evidence on record and the submissions by parties and
correctly awarded them damages under loss of dependency which was
commensurate with the age and earnings of the deceased at the time of the
accident.
14. They also cited the case of Kigaragari vs Aya[1985] KLR 273 where it was
held that in awarding damages for personal injury, the courts should consider
that there is need to develop consistency in the awards and that the awards
should be within the limits of decided cases and avoid the effect of making
insurance cover and fees unaffordable for the public.
15. They pointed out that the Trial Court considered the age of the deceased, the
nature of the work he engaged in, age of the referenced authorities and the
rate of inflation in adopting the multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/=. They asserted
that in reaching the said conclusion the Trial Court relied on the case of
Martha Ndiro Odero (Suing as the administrator and personal
representative of the estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased) vs
Come Cons Africa Limited 2015 where the court therein adopted a
5
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= for a deceased who died aged 32 years old and
was working with Kenya Army.
16. They were emphatic that the Trial Court took into account relevant principles
in arriving at the figure of Kshs 640,000/= under this head and that the same
was not excessive in the circumstances. They urged this court to uphold the
same and dismiss the Appellant’s appeal herein with costs.
17. The Court of Appeal, pronounced itself succinctly on the principles for
disturbing award of damages in Kemfro Africa Ltd Vs Meru Express Service
Vs. A.M Lubia & Another 1957 KLR 27 as follows: -
“The principles to be observed by an appellate Court in deciding whether
it is justified in distributing the quantum of damages awarded by the trial
Judge were held in the Court of Appeal for the former East Africa to be
that it must be satisfied that either the Judge in assessing the damages,
took into account an irrelevant facts 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 damages.”
18. The principles which guide the court in the assessment of damages were laid
in In Charles Oriwo Odeyo vs. Appollo Justus Andabwa & Another [2017]
eKLR of damages in a personal injury case. The considerations include but
not limited to; -
“1. An award of damages is not meant to enrich the victim but to
compensate such victim for the injuries sustained.
2. The award should be commensurable with the injuries sustained.
3. Previous awards in similar injuries sustained are mere guide but each
case be treated on its own facts.
4. Previous awards to be taken into account to maintain stability of
awards but factors such as inflation should be taken into account.
5. The awards should not be inordinately low or high.”
6
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
19. According to the Court of Appeal in Bashir Ahmed Butt vs Uwais Ahmed
Khan (1982-88) KAR as cited by the 1st Respondent, the court stated that: -
“An appellate court will not disturb an award for general 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.”
20. So as to determine what was the appropriate multiplicand in this matter, this
court had due regard to the case of Jacob Ayiga Maruja & Another vs
Simeon Obayo [2005] eKLR where the Court of Appeal rendered itself on the
question of failure to adduce proof of income. It stated that it did not subscribe
to the view that the only way to prove the profession of a person had to be by
the production of certificates and that the only way of proving earnings was
by production of documents as this would occasion a lot of injustice to very
many Kenyans who were illiterate and kept no records yet they earned their
livelihood in various ways.
21. In that case, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the respondent
therein and the widow coupled with the production of school reports was
sufficient material to amount to strict proof for the damages claimed. This is
what the court stated:
“In our view, there was more than sufficient material on record from which
the learned Judge was entitled to, and did draw the conclusion that the
deceased was a carpenter and that his monthly earnings were about Shs.
4,000/= per month. We do not subscribe to the view that the only way to
prove the profession of a person must be by the production of certificates
and that the only way of proving earnings is equally the production of
documents. That kind of stand would do a lot of injustice to very many
Kenyans who are even illiterate, keep no records and yet earn their
7
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
livelihood in various ways. If documentary evidence is available, that is
well and good. But we reject any contention that only documentary
evidence can prove these things.”
32. We reiterate that it would be unrealistic and unfair to expect strict
proof of income through documents in regard to a small business
enterprise carried out by a sole proprietor who is deceased. If there is
sufficient evidence that the deceased was carrying out the alleged
business, the court has to assess the income, doing the best that it can
in the circumstances of the case.
33. ….
34. We find that the learned judge misdirected herself and abdicated her
responsibility in failing to assess the deceased’s net income as she was
expected to assess the income as best as she could, using the little evidence
available. The minimum wage of Kshs. 11,995/- was an appropriate place
to begin because the deceased being a business lady carrying out a timber
and furniture business, she must at least have employed a carpenter for the
business and was unlikely to earn less than the carpenter. In our view given
the evidence before the trial Judge including the bank statement showing
monies going into and out of the deceased’s account, a sum of Kshs 30,000/=
would have been appropriate as the net monthly income of the deceased.”
22. In Moses Mairua Muchiri vs. Cyrus Maina Macharia (Suing as the personal
representative of the estate of Mercy Nzula Maina (deceased) [2016]
eKLR, it was held as follows-
“It has been held elsewhere that where it is not possible to ascertain the
multiplicand accurately, as appears to have been the case here, courts
should not be overly obsessed with mathematical calculations in order to
make an award under the head of lost years or loss of dependency. If the
multiplicand cannot be ascertained with any precision, courts can make a
global award, which by no means is a standard or conventional figure but
is an award that will always be subject to the circumstances of each
particular case.”
8
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
23. In the instant case, the Respondents pleaded in their Amended Plaint filed on
30th March 2017 that the deceased used to operate a retail shop earning Kshs
30,000/= per month. They claimed that he used the said earnings to educate
and maintain his family and dependents and that his estate had, therefore,
suffered loss and damages.
24. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Appellants, this court is
persuaded to believe the Respondents’ testimony that the deceased was
manned a retail shop. However, as there was no documentation to prove that
he actually earned Kshs 30,000/=, the Kshs 10,000/= that was awarded by
the Trial Court was not unreasonable estimation in the circumstances. The
Appellant’s Kshs 5,844.00 was on the lower side and they failed to explain
how they had arrived at the said figure.
25. On the other hand, the Trial Court had relied on the case of Martha Ndiro
Odero (Suing as the administrator and personal representative of the
estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased) vs Come Cons Africa
Limited [2015]eKLR where the court therein adopted a multiplicand of Kshs
10,000/= for a deceased who died aged 32 years old and was working with
Kenya Army.
26. Courts are guided by comparable cases to arrive at conclusions that are not
so wide apart as to cause inconsistency and confusion to those relying on the
decisions. In the circumstances foregoing, Grounds of Appeal Nos (1), (2), (3),
(4) and (5) of the Memorandum of Appeal were not merited and the same be
and are hereby dismissed.
9
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
27. In the result, and for the reasons set out hereinabove, the Appeal lodged on
15th August 2024 is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the Judgment of the Trial Court in Vihiga PMCC No. 189 of
2016, delivered on 16th July 2024, is affirmed.
28. Each party will bear its own costs of the Appeal herein.
29. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT VIHIGA THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY
2026
………………………………………….
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
10
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT VIHIGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO E040 OF 2024
MALANG KOTIK BUSINESS MERCHANTS …………………. 1ST APPELLANT
KELVIN RUTO ………………………………..………………….... 2ND APPELLANT
WILLIAM KOMEN SOMOKWO ………………………….……… 3RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
DERRICK OBOTE MANAGU & ALLAN KINAGU MUNAVO (Suing as the
Legal Representatives of the Estate of HENRY OBOTE GALO
(Deceased)…………………………………………………………. 1st RESPONDENT
EZEKIEL MWANIKI ………………….…………………………. 2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon J. A. Agonda (SPM)
delivered at Vihiga in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No
189 of 2016 on 16th July 2024)
JUDGMENT
1. The background of this Appeal is that the 1st Respondent vide an amended
Plaint dated 28th March, 2017 sued the Appellants claiming general damages
(both under the Fatal Accident Act and The Law Reform Act) and special
damages in respect of the estate Henry Obote Galo) hereinafter referred to as
the deceased in respect of the Fatal injuries to the deceased sustained in a
road traffic accident which occurred on 21st April, 2016 along Kapsabet
Chavakali road involving a motor vehicle registration number KBJ 603D and
motor vehicle registration number KAS 427M in which the Plaintiff was
travelling as a lawful passenger when the vehicle was carelessly, negligently
and or recklessly driven at a high speed that it caused the vehicle to run into
a ditch thereby caused an accident as a result the Plaintiff/1st Respondent
suffered serious injuries.
1
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
2. The defendants entered appearance and filed a statement of defense in which
they denied virtually all the averments advanced by the Plaintiff.
3. In her decision of 16th July 2024, the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon J. A.
Agonda, Senior Principal Magistrate, entered Judgment in favor of the
Respondents as against the Appellants herein in the following terms: -
Pain and Suffering
Loss of expectation of life
Loss of dependency
Special Damages
Total
Kshs 50,000/=
Kshs 100,000/=
Kshs
640,000/=
Kshs 15, 830/=
Kshs 805,830/=
4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 15th August 2024, the Appellants
herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal of even date. They relied on five (5)
grounds of appeal. The grounds are captured as hereunder:
a. The quantum of general damages in respect of lost dependency is
inordinately high erroneous, oppressive and punitive and
amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
b. The Learned Trial Magistrate ignored and/or paid lip service to
the parties submissions on the multiplicand which she did not
analyze or consider at all.
c. The Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law when she applied the
multiplicand of Kshs. 10,000/= without any basis for such a
sum, nor any finding as to what the deceased did and earned,
and without any analysis of the issue of the multiplicand, and
thus applied a multiplicand unsupportable on the evidence and
2
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
submissions and simply plucked from the air, thereby reaching
an unreasonable high, capricious and arbitrary, unjust award.
d. The Learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in completely
ignoring the submission made by the appellants and the 1st
Respondent that the applicable multiplicand was Kshs. 5,844
and proceeding to hold, without any evidence or precedent, that
the multiplicand was Kshs. 10,000/=.
e. The Learned Trial Magistrate failed to take into account all
relevant considerations and principles in assessing the quantum
of damages.
f. Other grounds as may be argued with the leave of the Court.
5. As at the time of writing this Judgment, the Appellants had not filed their
Written Submissions. The 1st Respondent’s Written Submissions were dated
and filed on 11th November 2025, which I have carefully read and considered.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
6. It is settled law that the duty of a first appellate court is to evaluate afresh the
evidence adduced before the trial court in order to arrive at its own
independent conclusion but bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the
witnesses testify.
7. This was aptly stated in the case of Selle & Another vs Associated Motor
Boat Co Ltd & Others [1968] EA 123 where the court therein held that the
appellate court was not bound by the findings of fact of the trial court but
that in re-considering and re-evaluating the evidence so as to draw its own
3
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
conclusions, it always had to bear in mind that it neither saw nor heard the
witnesses and thus make due allowance in that respect.
8. Having looked at the Grounds of Appeal and the 1st Respondent’s Written
Submissions, it appeared to this court that the only issue that had been
placed before it for determination was whether or not the quantum in respect
of damages under the loss of dependency that was awarded by the Trial Court
was excessive in the circumstances warranting interference by this court.
9. This court dealt with the said issue under the following separate and distinct
heads.
10.
DAMAGES UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
A. DEPENDENCY RATIO
The dependency ratio was not contested. This court did not disturb the
Trial Court’s dependency ratio of 2/3 as the deceased was married and had
two (2) children.
11.
B. MULTIPLIER
The multiplier was also not contested. This court, therefore, did not
disturb the Trial Court’s multiplier of eight (8) years considering the age of the
deceased, that was reasonable in the circumstances.
C. MULTIPLICAND
12. This was the only issue that was contested under loss of dependency. The 1st
Respondents placed reliance on the cases of Mercy Kirito Mugeti vs Beatrice
Nkatha Nyaga & 2 Others [2013]eKLR and Selle & Another vs Associated
Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others (Supra) on the duty of the first appellate court
4
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
and the cases of Butt vs Khan (1977) KAR 1 , Bashir Ahmed Butt vs Uwais
Ahmed Khan (1982)-88) and Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others vs Attorney
General [2016]eKLR where the common thread was that an appellate court
could only interfere with an award of damages if the aggrieved party satisfies
that the trial court took into account irrelevant factors or left out relevant
factors and that the amount of damages was so inordinately high or low that
the quantum awarded must be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.
13. They argued that the Trial Court took into account the relevant factors being
the pleadings, evidence on record and the submissions by parties and
correctly awarded them damages under loss of dependency which was
commensurate with the age and earnings of the deceased at the time of the
accident.
14. They also cited the case of Kigaragari vs Aya[1985] KLR 273 where it was
held that in awarding damages for personal injury, the courts should consider
that there is need to develop consistency in the awards and that the awards
should be within the limits of decided cases and avoid the effect of making
insurance cover and fees unaffordable for the public.
15. They pointed out that the Trial Court considered the age of the deceased, the
nature of the work he engaged in, age of the referenced authorities and the
rate of inflation in adopting the multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/=. They asserted
that in reaching the said conclusion the Trial Court relied on the case of
Martha Ndiro Odero (Suing as the administrator and personal
representative of the estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased) vs
Come Cons Africa Limited 2015 where the court therein adopted a
5
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= for a deceased who died aged 32 years old and
was working with Kenya Army.
16. They were emphatic that the Trial Court took into account relevant principles
in arriving at the figure of Kshs 640,000/= under this head and that the same
was not excessive in the circumstances. They urged this court to uphold the
same and dismiss the Appellant’s appeal herein with costs.
17. The Court of Appeal, pronounced itself succinctly on the principles for
disturbing award of damages in Kemfro Africa Ltd Vs Meru Express Service
Vs. A.M Lubia & Another 1957 KLR 27 as follows: -
“The principles to be observed by an appellate Court in deciding whether
it is justified in distributing the quantum of damages awarded by the trial
Judge were held in the Court of Appeal for the former East Africa to be
that it must be satisfied that either the Judge in assessing the damages,
took into account an irrelevant facts 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 damages.”
18. The principles which guide the court in the assessment of damages were laid
in In Charles Oriwo Odeyo vs. Appollo Justus Andabwa & Another [2017]
eKLR of damages in a personal injury case. The considerations include but
not limited to; -
“1. An award of damages is not meant to enrich the victim but to
compensate such victim for the injuries sustained.
2. The award should be commensurable with the injuries sustained.
3. Previous awards in similar injuries sustained are mere guide but each
case be treated on its own facts.
4. Previous awards to be taken into account to maintain stability of
awards but factors such as inflation should be taken into account.
5. The awards should not be inordinately low or high.”
6
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
19. According to the Court of Appeal in Bashir Ahmed Butt vs Uwais Ahmed
Khan (1982-88) KAR as cited by the 1st Respondent, the court stated that: -
“An appellate court will not disturb an award for general 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.”
20. So as to determine what was the appropriate multiplicand in this matter, this
court had due regard to the case of Jacob Ayiga Maruja & Another vs
Simeon Obayo [2005] eKLR where the Court of Appeal rendered itself on the
question of failure to adduce proof of income. It stated that it did not subscribe
to the view that the only way to prove the profession of a person had to be by
the production of certificates and that the only way of proving earnings was
by production of documents as this would occasion a lot of injustice to very
many Kenyans who were illiterate and kept no records yet they earned their
livelihood in various ways.
21. In that case, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the respondent
therein and the widow coupled with the production of school reports was
sufficient material to amount to strict proof for the damages claimed. This is
what the court stated:
“In our view, there was more than sufficient material on record from which
the learned Judge was entitled to, and did draw the conclusion that the
deceased was a carpenter and that his monthly earnings were about Shs.
4,000/= per month. We do not subscribe to the view that the only way to
prove the profession of a person must be by the production of certificates
and that the only way of proving earnings is equally the production of
documents. That kind of stand would do a lot of injustice to very many
Kenyans who are even illiterate, keep no records and yet earn their
7
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
livelihood in various ways. If documentary evidence is available, that is
well and good. But we reject any contention that only documentary
evidence can prove these things.”
32. We reiterate that it would be unrealistic and unfair to expect strict
proof of income through documents in regard to a small business
enterprise carried out by a sole proprietor who is deceased. If there is
sufficient evidence that the deceased was carrying out the alleged
business, the court has to assess the income, doing the best that it can
in the circumstances of the case.
33. ….
34. We find that the learned judge misdirected herself and abdicated her
responsibility in failing to assess the deceased’s net income as she was
expected to assess the income as best as she could, using the little evidence
available. The minimum wage of Kshs. 11,995/- was an appropriate place
to begin because the deceased being a business lady carrying out a timber
and furniture business, she must at least have employed a carpenter for the
business and was unlikely to earn less than the carpenter. In our view given
the evidence before the trial Judge including the bank statement showing
monies going into and out of the deceased’s account, a sum of Kshs 30,000/=
would have been appropriate as the net monthly income of the deceased.”
22. In Moses Mairua Muchiri vs. Cyrus Maina Macharia (Suing as the personal
representative of the estate of Mercy Nzula Maina (deceased) [2016]
eKLR, it was held as follows-
“It has been held elsewhere that where it is not possible to ascertain the
multiplicand accurately, as appears to have been the case here, courts
should not be overly obsessed with mathematical calculations in order to
make an award under the head of lost years or loss of dependency. If the
multiplicand cannot be ascertained with any precision, courts can make a
global award, which by no means is a standard or conventional figure but
is an award that will always be subject to the circumstances of each
particular case.”
8
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
23. In the instant case, the Respondents pleaded in their Amended Plaint filed on
30th March 2017 that the deceased used to operate a retail shop earning Kshs
30,000/= per month. They claimed that he used the said earnings to educate
and maintain his family and dependents and that his estate had, therefore,
suffered loss and damages.
24. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Appellants, this court is
persuaded to believe the Respondents’ testimony that the deceased was
manned a retail shop. However, as there was no documentation to prove that
he actually earned Kshs 30,000/=, the Kshs 10,000/= that was awarded by
the Trial Court was not unreasonable estimation in the circumstances. The
Appellant’s Kshs 5,844.00 was on the lower side and they failed to explain
how they had arrived at the said figure.
25. On the other hand, the Trial Court had relied on the case of Martha Ndiro
Odero (Suing as the administrator and personal representative of the
estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased) vs Come Cons Africa
Limited [2015]eKLR where the court therein adopted a multiplicand of Kshs
10,000/= for a deceased who died aged 32 years old and was working with
Kenya Army.
26. Courts are guided by comparable cases to arrive at conclusions that are not
so wide apart as to cause inconsistency and confusion to those relying on the
decisions. In the circumstances foregoing, Grounds of Appeal Nos (1), (2), (3),
(4) and (5) of the Memorandum of Appeal were not merited and the same be
and are hereby dismissed.
9
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024
27. In the result, and for the reasons set out hereinabove, the Appeal lodged on
15th August 2024 is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the Judgment of the Trial Court in Vihiga PMCC No. 189 of
2016, delivered on 16th July 2024, is affirmed.
28. Each party will bear its own costs of the Appeal herein.
29. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT VIHIGA THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY
2026
………………………………………….
R. NYAKUNDI
JUDGE
10
HCCA NO E040 OF 2024