REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO E039 OF 2024
MALANG KOTIK BUSINESS MERCHANTS ……………..….…... 1 ST APPELLANT
KELVIN RUTO………………………………………………………….2 ND APPELLANT
WILLIAM KOMEN SOMOKWO…………………………………….3 RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
DERRICK OBOTE KINAGU &
ALLAN KINAGU MUNAVO
(Suing as the legal representatives
in the estate of MAULINE IMBARANI) ……………………….. 1 ST RESPONDENT
EZEKIEL MWANIKI …………………………………………….… 2 ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon J.A. Agonda (PM) delivered at Vihiga in the Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No 186 of 2016 on 16 th July 2024)
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. In her decision of 16 th July 2024, the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon J.A. Agonda, Principal Magistrate, entered Judgment in favour of the 1 st Respondent against the Appellants and the 2 nd Respondent herein in the following terms: -
Pain & suffering Kshs 50,000/=
Loss of Expectation of life Kshs 100,000/=
Loss of dependency Kshs 1,200,000/=
Special damages Kshs 15,830/=
Total Kshs 1,365,830/=
2. Vide a Ruling dated 21 st November 2024, the Trial Court awarded the 1 st Respondent costs in the sum of Kshs 158,571/=.
3. Being aggrieved by the decision of 16 th July 2024, the Appellants herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated and filed on 15 th August 2024. They relied on six (6) grounds of appeal. On 15 th August 2025, the Appellants filed a Supplementary Record of Appeal dated 12 th August 2025 annexing a copy of the Post Mortem Report and certified copies of the judgment and decree.
4. The Appellants’ Written Submissions were dated 30 th October 2025 and filed on 3 rd November 2025 while those of the 1 st Respondent were dated and filed on 30 th October 2025. The 2 nd Respondent did not file Written Submissions but elected to rely on the Appellants' Written Submissions. The Judgment herein is based on the said Written Submissions, which all parties relied upon in their entirety.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
5. 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.
6. 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 conclusions, it always had to bear in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses and thus make due allowance in that respect.
7. It appeared to this court that the issue that had been paced before it for determination was whether the Trial Court erred in law and fact in the assessment of damages for loss of dependency warranting interference by this court. Ground No (6) was not a substantive ground of appeal and therefore did not fall for determination. However, Grounds of Appeal Nos (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) were all related and were addressed together.
8. The Appellants submitted that the appeal was only against the multiplicand/income that was adopted by the Trial Court. They relied on Dennis vs SOO [2023] KECA 881 (KLR) which cited the case of Butt vs Khan [1978] eKLR and the case of Denshire Muteti Wambua vs Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd [2013] eKLR where the common thread was that an appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it was shown that the trial court proceeded on wrong principles, misapprehended the evidence in some material respect, took into account an irrelevant factor, left out of account a relevant factor, or arrived at a figure that was either inordinately high or low and therefore represented a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
9. They averred that the deceased was said to have been a farmer and businesswoman, selling maize and making net profits of Kshs 20,000/= per month. They contended that the 1 st Respondent testified that the deceased used to pay school fees and provide for her family but failed to produce books of account, bank account, County Government receipts, or any document showing that the deceased carried on a maize business or earned Kshs. 20,000/= per month.
10. They submitted that the evidence that the deceased was a farmer and a business lady selling maize and earning Kshs 20,000/= was a bare plain statement. While acknowledging that evidence of earnings need not be supported by documents, they argued that there must nevertheless be credible and reliable evidence to prove earnings. They contended that no evidence was given as to what the deceased farmed, what the acreage was, the quantity harvested, how many times a year she harvested, the quantities of maize sold, her clientele, the daily average income, the tenancy of the shop, its size or the volumes of sales.
11. They submitted that in the absence of evidence of the deceased’s earnings, the 1 st Respondent had proposed to the Trial Court that the minimum wage of a general labourer under Legal Notice No 117 of 2015, namely Kshs 5,844.20, be adopted as the multiplicand, a position they agreed with. They submitted that notwithstanding the concurring submissions between the parties on the multiplicand of Kshs 5,844.20, the Trial Court adopted a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/=.
12. They argued that although the Trial Court had the ultimate power to determine the multiplicand, that power could only be exercised with reason and not arbitrarily or whimsically. They submitted that in the absence of any evidence of the earnings of the deceased, the Trial Court had the option of awarding a global sum or applying the multiplier/multiplicand approach. They contended that the Trial Court herein opted for the multiplier approach but adopted an erroneous multiplicand as it simply plucked the figure of Kshs 10,000/= from the air and ignored the submissions of the parties.
13. They emphasised that apart from relying on 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 in which the court applied a multiplicand based on the deceased's proved net salary of Kshs 14,000/= per month and a multiplier of 20 years, the Trial Court herein did not give any reason how it arrived at the figure of Kshs 10,000/=. They were emphatic that there was absolutely no similarity between the aforesaid case and the present matter hence, there was no basis for the multiplicand adopted by the Trial Court.
14. They were categorical that a judgment had to contain both the points and reasons for its determination in all cases as provided in Order 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which gave no room for discretion or choice to a Trial Court and that if no such reasons were given, the judgment was rendered defective warranting interference by the appellate court. They therefore submitted that the judgment violated the cardinal rule of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, thereby warranting interference by the appellate court. They relied on the cases of Godfrey Gatere Kamau vs Peter Mwangi Njuguna [2008] eKLR and Francis Barasa Lurare & another vs Denis Nyongesa Maloba [2020] eKLR amongst others where the common thread was that the court was required to render a reasoned decision.
15. They maintained that the evidence on the deceased's income was unsatisfactory and that the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 applicable to a general worker in “all other areas” under the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2015 was the appropriate multiplicand. They pointed out that whereas the 1 st Respondent was now supporting a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= on appeal, before the Trial Court the same Respondent had urged the court to adopt a multiplicand of Kshs 5,844.20. They thus, urged the court to set aside multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= that was adopted by the Trial Court.
16. On his part , t he 1 st Respondent submitted that the appeal lacked merit and ought to be dismissed with costs. He relied on the case Mercy Kirito Mugeti vs Beatrice Nkatha Nyaga & 2 Others [2013] eKLR citing Selle & Another vs Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others (Supra) where it was stated that the court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in that respect.
17. He further submitted that the principles upon which the court acted on a first appeal were well settled and that the court could only interfere with an award of damages as was set out in the case of Butt vs Khan (Supra). He also relied on the case of Shabani vs City Council of Nairobi (1985) KLR 516 and Kigaragari vs Aya [1985] KLR 273 amongst others which reiterated the same principles.
18. He relied on the case Martha Ndiro Odero (Suing as the Administrator & Personal Representative of the Estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased)) vs Come Cons Africa Limited (2015) wherein the court therein adopted a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= for a deceased was working with Kenya Army. He submitted that the Trial Court’s considered the rate of inflation of submitted that the Trial Court adopted a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= instead of the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 since the deceased’s earnings could not be proved.
19. This court noted the 1 st Respondent’s Written Submissions on the global award of Kshs 1,200,000/= for loss of dependency. However, since the issue of multiplier of fifteen (15) and dependency ratio of two thirds (2/3) were not contested, it found it prudent to focus on the issue of the multiplicand and in particular, the Trial court’s adoption of a multiplicand of Kshs. 10,000/=.
20. It was clear from the proceedings that the 1 st Respondent did not adduce any documentary evidence to support his assertions that the deceased was earning a sum of Kshs 20,000/= per month from farming and the maize business. It was, therefore, not possible to establish a reliable multiplicand. The adoption of a multiplicand of Kshs. 10,000/= by the Trial Court was, therefore, not anchored on proved earnings.
21. While the multiplier approach remained an accepted method of assessment under the Fatal Accidents Act, its application depended on sufficient evidence of the deceased's income, dependency and age of the deceased. Where evidence on those ingredients for loss of dependency was lacking, the court was called upon to adopt the global-sum approach.
22. Having reviewed the record, this court was satisfied that the evidence concerning the deceased's earnings was uncertain and incapable of supporting a precise multiplicand. It was for that reason that both the Appellants and the 1 st Respondent had informed the Trial Court that it could adopt the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 applicable to a general worker in “all other areas” under the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2015. It was only at this appellate stage that the 1 st Respondent had urged this court to maintain the sum of Kshs 10,000/=.
23. The 1 st Respondent could approbate and reprobate. It was the considered view that the sum of Kshs 10,000/= that was awarded by the Trial Court had no legal basis. Indeed, it did not give any reasons why it arrived at the said figure contrary to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules that required every decision to be reasoned. This court thus adopted the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 that the Appellants and the Respondents herein had proposed to be applied by the Trial Court.
24. In the premises foregoing, Grounds of Appeal Nos (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) were merited and the same be and are hereby allowed.
INTEREST
25. This issue was not raised on appeal. However, as this court had both original and appellate jurisdiction, it found it prudent to address the issue of interest. This was because in its decision of 16 th July 2024 and 21 st November 2024, the Trial Court did not address its mind to the issue of interest.
26. In this regard, Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 21 (Laws of Kenya) provides as follows:-
1. Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
2. Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have ordered interest at 6 per cent per annum.
27. In the absence of any pronouncement on this issue, this court found and held that the Trial Court ought to have given interest as the 1 st Respondent had been kept away from monies that he incurred in the nature of special damages. Interest on general damages was also payable for as long as the 1 st Respondent was kept away from the said award.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Appellants’ Appeal dated and filed on 15 th August 2024 was merited. The effect of this decision is that the award of the multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= that was awarded by Hon J.A. Agonda, Principal Magistrate that was delivered in Vihiga in SPMCC No 186 of 2016 on 16 th July 2024 be and is hereby set aside. It is hereby directed that judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the 1 st Respondent against the Appellants and the 2 nd Respondent jointly and severally for the sum of Kshs 867,134/= made up as follows:-
Loss of dependency Kshs 701,304/=
2/3 x 5,844.20 x 15 x 12
Loss of Expectation of life Kshs 100,000/=
Pain & suffering Kshs 50,000/=
Special damages Kshs 15,830/=
Kshs 867,134/=
Plus costs in the sum of Kshs 158,571/=
28. For the avoidance of doubt, interest on special damages will be at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full while interest on general damages will be at court rates from the date of the judgment of the Trial Court until payment in full.
29. However, in view of fact of the financial might between the Appellants and the 1 st Respondent, it is hereby directed that each party will bear its own costs of this appeal.
30. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at VIHIGA this 17 th day of September 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCA NO E039 OF 20242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO E039 OF 2024
MALANG KOTIK BUSINESS MERCHANTS ……………..….…... 1 ST APPELLANT
KELVIN RUTO………………………………………………………….2 ND APPELLANT
WILLIAM KOMEN SOMOKWO…………………………………….3 RD APPELLANT
VERSUS
DERRICK OBOTE KINAGU &
ALLAN KINAGU MUNAVO
(Suing as the legal representatives
in the estate of MAULINE IMBARANI) ……………………….. 1 ST RESPONDENT
EZEKIEL MWANIKI …………………………………………….… 2 ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon J.A. Agonda (PM) delivered at Vihiga in the Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Case No 186 of 2016 on 16 th July 2024)
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. In her decision of 16 th July 2024, the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon J.A. Agonda, Principal Magistrate, entered Judgment in favour of the 1 st Respondent against the Appellants and the 2 nd Respondent herein in the following terms: -
Pain & suffering Kshs 50,000/=
Loss of Expectation of life Kshs 100,000/=
Loss of dependency Kshs 1,200,000/=
Special damages Kshs 15,830/=
Total Kshs 1,365,830/=
2. Vide a Ruling dated 21 st November 2024, the Trial Court awarded the 1 st Respondent costs in the sum of Kshs 158,571/=.
3. Being aggrieved by the decision of 16 th July 2024, the Appellants herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated and filed on 15 th August 2024. They relied on six (6) grounds of appeal. On 15 th August 2025, the Appellants filed a Supplementary Record of Appeal dated 12 th August 2025 annexing a copy of the Post Mortem Report and certified copies of the judgment and decree.
4. The Appellants’ Written Submissions were dated 30 th October 2025 and filed on 3 rd November 2025 while those of the 1 st Respondent were dated and filed on 30 th October 2025. The 2 nd Respondent did not file Written Submissions but elected to rely on the Appellants' Written Submissions. The Judgment herein is based on the said Written Submissions, which all parties relied upon in their entirety.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
5. 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.
6. 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 conclusions, it always had to bear in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses and thus make due allowance in that respect.
7. It appeared to this court that the issue that had been paced before it for determination was whether the Trial Court erred in law and fact in the assessment of damages for loss of dependency warranting interference by this court. Ground No (6) was not a substantive ground of appeal and therefore did not fall for determination. However, Grounds of Appeal Nos (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) were all related and were addressed together.
8. The Appellants submitted that the appeal was only against the multiplicand/income that was adopted by the Trial Court. They relied on Dennis vs SOO [2023] KECA 881 (KLR) which cited the case of Butt vs Khan [1978] eKLR and the case of Denshire Muteti Wambua vs Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd [2013] eKLR where the common thread was that an appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it was shown that the trial court proceeded on wrong principles, misapprehended the evidence in some material respect, took into account an irrelevant factor, left out of account a relevant factor, or arrived at a figure that was either inordinately high or low and therefore represented a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
9. They averred that the deceased was said to have been a farmer and businesswoman, selling maize and making net profits of Kshs 20,000/= per month. They contended that the 1 st Respondent testified that the deceased used to pay school fees and provide for her family but failed to produce books of account, bank account, County Government receipts, or any document showing that the deceased carried on a maize business or earned Kshs. 20,000/= per month.
10. They submitted that the evidence that the deceased was a farmer and a business lady selling maize and earning Kshs 20,000/= was a bare plain statement. While acknowledging that evidence of earnings need not be supported by documents, they argued that there must nevertheless be credible and reliable evidence to prove earnings. They contended that no evidence was given as to what the deceased farmed, what the acreage was, the quantity harvested, how many times a year she harvested, the quantities of maize sold, her clientele, the daily average income, the tenancy of the shop, its size or the volumes of sales.
11. They submitted that in the absence of evidence of the deceased’s earnings, the 1 st Respondent had proposed to the Trial Court that the minimum wage of a general labourer under Legal Notice No 117 of 2015, namely Kshs 5,844.20, be adopted as the multiplicand, a position they agreed with. They submitted that notwithstanding the concurring submissions between the parties on the multiplicand of Kshs 5,844.20, the Trial Court adopted a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/=.
12. They argued that although the Trial Court had the ultimate power to determine the multiplicand, that power could only be exercised with reason and not arbitrarily or whimsically. They submitted that in the absence of any evidence of the earnings of the deceased, the Trial Court had the option of awarding a global sum or applying the multiplier/multiplicand approach. They contended that the Trial Court herein opted for the multiplier approach but adopted an erroneous multiplicand as it simply plucked the figure of Kshs 10,000/= from the air and ignored the submissions of the parties.
13. They emphasised that apart from relying on 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 in which the court applied a multiplicand based on the deceased's proved net salary of Kshs 14,000/= per month and a multiplier of 20 years, the Trial Court herein did not give any reason how it arrived at the figure of Kshs 10,000/=. They were emphatic that there was absolutely no similarity between the aforesaid case and the present matter hence, there was no basis for the multiplicand adopted by the Trial Court.
14. They were categorical that a judgment had to contain both the points and reasons for its determination in all cases as provided in Order 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which gave no room for discretion or choice to a Trial Court and that if no such reasons were given, the judgment was rendered defective warranting interference by the appellate court. They therefore submitted that the judgment violated the cardinal rule of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, thereby warranting interference by the appellate court. They relied on the cases of Godfrey Gatere Kamau vs Peter Mwangi Njuguna [2008] eKLR and Francis Barasa Lurare & another vs Denis Nyongesa Maloba [2020] eKLR amongst others where the common thread was that the court was required to render a reasoned decision.
15. They maintained that the evidence on the deceased's income was unsatisfactory and that the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 applicable to a general worker in “all other areas” under the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2015 was the appropriate multiplicand. They pointed out that whereas the 1 st Respondent was now supporting a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= on appeal, before the Trial Court the same Respondent had urged the court to adopt a multiplicand of Kshs 5,844.20. They thus, urged the court to set aside multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= that was adopted by the Trial Court.
16. On his part , t he 1 st Respondent submitted that the appeal lacked merit and ought to be dismissed with costs. He relied on the case Mercy Kirito Mugeti vs Beatrice Nkatha Nyaga & 2 Others [2013] eKLR citing Selle & Another vs Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & Others (Supra) where it was stated that the court must reconsider the evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions, while bearing in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should make due allowance in that respect.
17. He further submitted that the principles upon which the court acted on a first appeal were well settled and that the court could only interfere with an award of damages as was set out in the case of Butt vs Khan (Supra). He also relied on the case of Shabani vs City Council of Nairobi (1985) KLR 516 and Kigaragari vs Aya [1985] KLR 273 amongst others which reiterated the same principles.
18. He relied on the case Martha Ndiro Odero (Suing as the Administrator & Personal Representative of the Estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased)) vs Come Cons Africa Limited (2015) wherein the court therein adopted a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= for a deceased was working with Kenya Army. He submitted that the Trial Court’s considered the rate of inflation of submitted that the Trial Court adopted a multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= instead of the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 since the deceased’s earnings could not be proved.
19. This court noted the 1 st Respondent’s Written Submissions on the global award of Kshs 1,200,000/= for loss of dependency. However, since the issue of multiplier of fifteen (15) and dependency ratio of two thirds (2/3) were not contested, it found it prudent to focus on the issue of the multiplicand and in particular, the Trial court’s adoption of a multiplicand of Kshs. 10,000/=.
20. It was clear from the proceedings that the 1 st Respondent did not adduce any documentary evidence to support his assertions that the deceased was earning a sum of Kshs 20,000/= per month from farming and the maize business. It was, therefore, not possible to establish a reliable multiplicand. The adoption of a multiplicand of Kshs. 10,000/= by the Trial Court was, therefore, not anchored on proved earnings.
21. While the multiplier approach remained an accepted method of assessment under the Fatal Accidents Act, its application depended on sufficient evidence of the deceased's income, dependency and age of the deceased. Where evidence on those ingredients for loss of dependency was lacking, the court was called upon to adopt the global-sum approach.
22. Having reviewed the record, this court was satisfied that the evidence concerning the deceased's earnings was uncertain and incapable of supporting a precise multiplicand. It was for that reason that both the Appellants and the 1 st Respondent had informed the Trial Court that it could adopt the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 applicable to a general worker in “all other areas” under the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2015. It was only at this appellate stage that the 1 st Respondent had urged this court to maintain the sum of Kshs 10,000/=.
23. The 1 st Respondent could approbate and reprobate. It was the considered view that the sum of Kshs 10,000/= that was awarded by the Trial Court had no legal basis. Indeed, it did not give any reasons why it arrived at the said figure contrary to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules that required every decision to be reasoned. This court thus adopted the minimum wage of Kshs 5,844.20 that the Appellants and the Respondents herein had proposed to be applied by the Trial Court.
24. In the premises foregoing, Grounds of Appeal Nos (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) were merited and the same be and are hereby allowed.
INTEREST
25. This issue was not raised on appeal. However, as this court had both original and appellate jurisdiction, it found it prudent to address the issue of interest. This was because in its decision of 16 th July 2024 and 21 st November 2024, the Trial Court did not address its mind to the issue of interest.
26. In this regard, Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 21 (Laws of Kenya) provides as follows:-
1. Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
2. Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have ordered interest at 6 per cent per annum.
27. In the absence of any pronouncement on this issue, this court found and held that the Trial Court ought to have given interest as the 1 st Respondent had been kept away from monies that he incurred in the nature of special damages. Interest on general damages was also payable for as long as the 1 st Respondent was kept away from the said award.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Appellants’ Appeal dated and filed on 15 th August 2024 was merited. The effect of this decision is that the award of the multiplicand of Kshs 10,000/= that was awarded by Hon J.A. Agonda, Principal Magistrate that was delivered in Vihiga in SPMCC No 186 of 2016 on 16 th July 2024 be and is hereby set aside. It is hereby directed that judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the 1 st Respondent against the Appellants and the 2 nd Respondent jointly and severally for the sum of Kshs 867,134/= made up as follows:-
Loss of dependency Kshs 701,304/=
2/3 x 5,844.20 x 15 x 12
Loss of Expectation of life Kshs 100,000/=
Pain & suffering Kshs 50,000/=
Special damages Kshs 15,830/=
Kshs 867,134/=
Plus costs in the sum of Kshs 158,571/=
28. For the avoidance of doubt, interest on special damages will be at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full while interest on general damages will be at court rates from the date of the judgment of the Trial Court until payment in full.
29. However, in view of fact of the financial might between the Appellants and the 1 st Respondent, it is hereby directed that each party will bear its own costs of this appeal.
30. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at VIHIGA this 17 th day of September 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCA NO E039 OF 20242