REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO E049 OF 2024
NANCY SAKWA MUTALI………..………………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
WEST KENYA SUGAR ……….………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon J.A. Agonda (PM) delivered at Vihiga in Principal Magistrate’s Court Case No 30 of 2020 on 22 nd August 2024)
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. In her decision of 22 nd August 2024, the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon J.A. Agonda, Principal Magistrate, found the Respondent wholly liable for the injuries that the Appellant sustained and entered Judgment in favour of the Appellant herein against the Respondent as follows:-
General Damages Kshs 500,000/=
Special damages Kshs 20,168/=
Kshs 520,168/=
Plus costs of the suit and interest thereon at court rates until payment in full.
2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 21 st September 2024, the Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 22 nd August 2024. She relied on three (3) grounds of appeal.
3. Her Written Submissions were dated 11 th July 2025 and filed on 15 th July 2025 while those of the Respondents were dated 25 th June 2025 and filed on 6 th July 2025. The Judgment herein is based on the said Written Submissions which both the Appellant and the Respondent relied upon in their entirety.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Having looked at the grounds of Appeal and the respective parties’ 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 that was awarded was inordinately low in the circumstances warranting interference by this court. All the g rounds of appeal were dealt with under this head as they were all related.
7. The court deemed it prudent to address the issue under the following distinct heads.
I. GENERAL DAMAGES
8. The Appellant pointed out that in Paragraph (5) of the Plaint, she sustained lacerations on the back and hands, cut wounds on the head, nose, lower lips, legs, hands and knees joints, tenderness and bruises on the neck, fracture of the left iliac crest, minimally displaced left mandibular fracture, backaches and general body aches. She added that she continued to have pain, tenderness, permanent and strain in the left hip region resulting in incapacitation of twelve (12%) per cent which was confirmed in Dr Olima’S Medical Report, swelling in the left lower limb, marked tenderness of the chest, scar of the right nostril, scar on the parietal region, multiple scars anterior aspect, headaches and tears in the eyes in intense light. She averred that all the doctors who attested to her injuries.
9. She submitted that the general damages that were awarded by the Trial Court were inordinately low. She added that the principles of awarding damages were that they had to be in tandem with previous awards for similar injuries, the damages were not to be inordinately low or inordinately excessive and take into account of inflation so as not to occasion injustice to the victim/litigant.
10. She referred this court to the case of Butt vs Khan Civil Appeal No 40 of 1997 where it was held that an appellate court would not disturb an award unless it was inordinately high or inordinately low as to represent an erroneous estimate and that it must be shown that the trial court misapprehended the evidence and so arrived at a figure that was inordinately high or inordinately low.
11. She referred to several cases where courts had awarded ranging Kshs 800,000/= to Kshs 1,850,000/= for injuries that were similar to what she had sustained. The cases were between 2016 and 2024.
12. On its part, the Respondent asked this court to disregard the injuries that the Appellant introduced in her Amended Plaint because the claim had already been statute- barred. It averred that the said Amended Plaint was filed on 1 st September 2023 , four (4) years after the incident and pursuant to leave of the court to which it filed an Amended Defence.
13. Notably, the Respondent did not file a cross- appeal or demonstrate that the decision of the Trial Court that was delivered on 11 th April 2024 was appealed against and the same overturned on appeal. For that reason, this court was not persuaded that it should disregard the injuries that were introduced in the Amended Plaint.
14. The Respondent placed reliance on the case of Kemfro Africa Limited T/A Meru Express Services vs Lubia (1976) eKLR where in considering whether to disturb the quantum of damages awarded by a trial court, the appellate court had to be satisfied that a trial court had taken into account irrelevant factors and left out relevant factors and that the damages were inordinately high or inordinately low.
15. It asserted that Dr Harun Ombongi (hereinafter referred to as “PW 4”), the Respondent only noted a fracture of the iliac crest (pelvis) and that no evidence was advanced to support the other injuries that the Appellant alluded to. It relied on the case of Michael Okello vs Priscilla Atieno [2021] eKLR which cited the case of Shah & Another vs Shah & Others (2023) 1 EA 290 where it was held that although medical evidence was expert evidence, it was not binding on the court.
16. It placed reliance on the cases of Pitalis Opiyo Ager vs Daniel Otieno Owino & Another [2020] eKLR and Otieno & Another vs Odhiambo [2024] KEHC 7688 (25 June 2024) (Judgment) citing several injuries but not indicating the damages that were awarded. It submitted that the award of Kshs 500,000/= was within the proper margin of awards for similar injuries and in this regard, it relied on the case of Nguku Joseph & Another vs Gerald Kihiu Maina [2020] KEHC 7670 where the appellate court upheld an award of Kshs 500,000/= for injuries similar to those that the Appellant herein sustained.
17. It is well settled in law that an appellate court will not disturb an award of general damages unless the same was so manifestly high or inordinately excessive or manifestly or inordinately low that a trial court had proceeded on the wrong principles or misapprehended the law, a principle that was dealt with in the case of Margaret T. Nyaga vs Victoria Wambua Kioko [ 2004] eKLR .
18. It must be understood that money can never really compensate a person who had sustained any injuries. No amount of money could remove the pain that a person went through no matter how small an injury appeared to be. It would in fact be difficult to say with certainty that a particular amount of money would be commensurate with the injuries that a person had sustained. It was merely an assessment of what a court would find to be reasonable in the circumstances to assuage a person who had suffered an injury.
19. Even so, this assessment was not without limits. A court had to ascertain to itself the sum of general damages that courts and especially appellate courts would ordinarily award in respect of a particular injury. A court therefore had to be guided by precedents.
20. Indeed, in the case of Kigaraari vs Aya (1982-88) 1 KAR 768 , it was stated that damages had to be within the limits set out by decided cases and also within the limits the Kenyan economy could afford. This was because high awards would lead to higher insurance premiums which would in turn affect the members of the public.
21. This court also had due regard to the case of Lim vs Camden HA [1980] AC 174 where it was held that even in assessing compensatory damages, the law sought to indemnify the victim for the loss suffered and not to punish the tortfeasor for the injury that he had caused.
22. Similar injuries ought to attract comparable awards as was held i n the cases of Denshire Muteti Wambua vs Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd [2013] eKLR and Godfrey Wamalwa Wamba vs Kyalo Wambua [2018[ eKLR .
23. However, in the quest for consistency, courts also had to recognise that no case was exactly the same as the other. It must be noted that cases cannot contain exact injuries and they are merely for comparison purposes. Each case therefore had to be decided according to its own peculiar circumstances but keeping in mind that any monies awarded had to be sustainable.
24. Towards this end, an appellate court ought not to interfere with the discretion of a trial court merely because it could have awarded a lower or higher sum than that which was awarded by the trial court. It could only interfere where the award of general damages was so manifestly high or inordinately excessive or manifestly or inordinately low that a trial court had proceeded on the wrong principles or misapprehended as was held in the case of Margaret T. Nyaga vs Victoria Wambua Kioko (Supra).
25. The Respondent did not call any witness. Dr Neima Mbaraku (hereinafter referred to as “PW2”), produced Medical Report on behalf of Dr Olima (now deceased) who examined the Appellant. herself. She testified that there was no permanent disability awarded as at 16 th January 2020. She could not ascertain the fracture since she did not examine the Appellant. She said that did not have x-ray fil. She stated that a fracture could be missed during first examination without x-ray.
26. Dr Omboai Haron (sic) was a general practitioner from Bungoma County Referral. His PW designation was not indicated but from the proceedings it appeared that he testified as the third witness. He tendered in evidence the Discharge Summaries Dr Musa Chibai and Dr Joseph Kipasang who he worked with. He stated that all doctors could not complete the Discharge Summary but confirmed that he was one of the doctors who attended to the Appellant herein.
27. He informed the Trial Court that the diagnosis was fracture of pelvis RTA (sic) and that she was admitted on 25 th November 2019 and she was discharged on 27 th December 2019. He could not if the Appellant had recovered but assumed that she may have recovered she never returned to their facility.
28. Notably, the injuries that Dr Olima indicated in his two (2) Medical Reports and in the X-Ray Report from West Kenya Diagnostic & Imaging Centre Limited were different from those that the Appellant was shown to have sustained when she was first treated at Bungoma County Referral Hospital. The said hospital only noted the pelvis injury.
29. As PW 2 stated, Dr Olima was now deceased. PW 2 could not ascertain the fractures as she did not examine the Appellant. In the absence of his clarification of what injuries that the Appellant sustained and bearing in mind that the Appellant was first seen at Bungoma County Referral Hospital which gave a diagnosis of a fracture of a pelvis with no complications.
30. T his court was in agreement with the Respondent’s contention that the injuries enumerated by Dr Olima as reproduced in the Amended Plaint were not the same the injuries that the Appellant was said to have sustained as per the initial Discharge Summary and evidence of Dr Omboai Haron (sic) . This court, therefore, adopted the diagnosis of the said hospital.
31. Remaining faithful to the doctrine of stare decisis and taking the inflationary trends into consideration, it was the considered view of this court that general damages in the sum of Kshs 500,000/= that was awarded by the Trial Court was not unreasonable but it was on the lower side. This court was of the view that a sum of Kshs 750,000/= would be fair compensation for the injuries that she sustained.
32. In arriving at the said conclusion, this court had due regard to the following cases:-
1. George Okewe Osawa v Sukari Industries Limited [2015] eKLR
The court awarded a sum of Kshs 400,000/= to the appellant who had sustained a fracture of the pelvis.
2. Lilian Wanja versus Cyprian Mugendi Igonga & 2 Others (2016) eKLR
The plaintiff therein was awarded Kshs 500,000/= in general damages for a fracture of the pelvis, a dislocation of the hip and multiple soft tissue injuries to the face, chest, the right wrist and elbow.
3. Monicah Wangui Mundia v Simon Njuguna (2020) KEHC 6193 (KLR)
The court awarded general damages in the sum of Kshs 750,000/= where the appellant therein suffered comminuted fracture of the clavicle, soft tissue injury of the left shoulder, fracture of the pelvis and deep cut wound on the left hand.
4. Gakuo vs Mugo [2023] KEHC 874 (KLR)
The plaintiff therein was awarded general damages in the sum of Kshs 750,000/= for fracture of the pelvis, soft tissue injuries of the right temporal parietal region, soft tissue injuries of the chest and soft tissue injuries of the hip joint
33. In the premises foregoing, Grounds of Appeal Nos (3), (4), and (5) were partly merited and the same be and are hereby allowed.
II. INTEREST
34. Although was not a ground of appeal, this court noted that the Trial Court awarded interest on special damages from the date of judgment. It was the considered view of this court that the Appellant had been kept away from the special damages from the inception of the suit. He was thus entitled to interest on special damages from the date of filing suit.
DISPOSITION
35. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Appellant’s Appeal that was dated 22 nd August 2024 and filed on 21 st September 2024 was partly merited. The effect of this was that the decision of Hon J.A. Agonda (PM) that was delivered at Vihiga in PMCC No 32 of 2024 on 22 nd August 2024 be and is hereby set aside and/or vacated and replaced with an order that judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents for the sum of Kshs 770,168/= made up as follows:-
General Damages Kshs 750,000/=
Special damages Kshs 20,168/=
Kshs 770,168/=
Plus costs and interest at court rates. For the avoidance of doubt, interest on special damages will accrue from the date of filing suit while interest on general damages will accrue from the date of judgment of the lower court.
36. As the Appellant was only partly successful in the Appeal herein, this court deviated from the general principle that costs follow the event and hereby directs that each party will bear its own costs of the Appeal herein.
37. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at VIHIGA this 27 th day of April 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCA NO E049 OF 202413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO E049 OF 2024
NANCY SAKWA MUTALI………..………………………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
WEST KENYA SUGAR ……….………………………………………… RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of Hon J.A. Agonda (PM) delivered at Vihiga in Principal Magistrate’s Court Case No 30 of 2020 on 22 nd August 2024)
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. In her decision of 22 nd August 2024, the Learned Trial Magistrate, Hon J.A. Agonda, Principal Magistrate, found the Respondent wholly liable for the injuries that the Appellant sustained and entered Judgment in favour of the Appellant herein against the Respondent as follows:-
General Damages Kshs 500,000/=
Special damages Kshs 20,168/=
Kshs 520,168/=
Plus costs of the suit and interest thereon at court rates until payment in full.
2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 21 st September 2024, the Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 22 nd August 2024. She relied on three (3) grounds of appeal.
3. Her Written Submissions were dated 11 th July 2025 and filed on 15 th July 2025 while those of the Respondents were dated 25 th June 2025 and filed on 6 th July 2025. The Judgment herein is based on the said Written Submissions which both the Appellant and the Respondent relied upon in their entirety.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Having looked at the grounds of Appeal and the respective parties’ 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 that was awarded was inordinately low in the circumstances warranting interference by this court. All the g rounds of appeal were dealt with under this head as they were all related.
7. The court deemed it prudent to address the issue under the following distinct heads.
I. GENERAL DAMAGES
8. The Appellant pointed out that in Paragraph (5) of the Plaint, she sustained lacerations on the back and hands, cut wounds on the head, nose, lower lips, legs, hands and knees joints, tenderness and bruises on the neck, fracture of the left iliac crest, minimally displaced left mandibular fracture, backaches and general body aches. She added that she continued to have pain, tenderness, permanent and strain in the left hip region resulting in incapacitation of twelve (12%) per cent which was confirmed in Dr Olima’S Medical Report, swelling in the left lower limb, marked tenderness of the chest, scar of the right nostril, scar on the parietal region, multiple scars anterior aspect, headaches and tears in the eyes in intense light. She averred that all the doctors who attested to her injuries.
9. She submitted that the general damages that were awarded by the Trial Court were inordinately low. She added that the principles of awarding damages were that they had to be in tandem with previous awards for similar injuries, the damages were not to be inordinately low or inordinately excessive and take into account of inflation so as not to occasion injustice to the victim/litigant.
10. She referred this court to the case of Butt vs Khan Civil Appeal No 40 of 1997 where it was held that an appellate court would not disturb an award unless it was inordinately high or inordinately low as to represent an erroneous estimate and that it must be shown that the trial court misapprehended the evidence and so arrived at a figure that was inordinately high or inordinately low.
11. She referred to several cases where courts had awarded ranging Kshs 800,000/= to Kshs 1,850,000/= for injuries that were similar to what she had sustained. The cases were between 2016 and 2024.
12. On its part, the Respondent asked this court to disregard the injuries that the Appellant introduced in her Amended Plaint because the claim had already been statute- barred. It averred that the said Amended Plaint was filed on 1 st September 2023 , four (4) years after the incident and pursuant to leave of the court to which it filed an Amended Defence.
13. Notably, the Respondent did not file a cross- appeal or demonstrate that the decision of the Trial Court that was delivered on 11 th April 2024 was appealed against and the same overturned on appeal. For that reason, this court was not persuaded that it should disregard the injuries that were introduced in the Amended Plaint.
14. The Respondent placed reliance on the case of Kemfro Africa Limited T/A Meru Express Services vs Lubia (1976) eKLR where in considering whether to disturb the quantum of damages awarded by a trial court, the appellate court had to be satisfied that a trial court had taken into account irrelevant factors and left out relevant factors and that the damages were inordinately high or inordinately low.
15. It asserted that Dr Harun Ombongi (hereinafter referred to as “PW 4”), the Respondent only noted a fracture of the iliac crest (pelvis) and that no evidence was advanced to support the other injuries that the Appellant alluded to. It relied on the case of Michael Okello vs Priscilla Atieno [2021] eKLR which cited the case of Shah & Another vs Shah & Others (2023) 1 EA 290 where it was held that although medical evidence was expert evidence, it was not binding on the court.
16. It placed reliance on the cases of Pitalis Opiyo Ager vs Daniel Otieno Owino & Another [2020] eKLR and Otieno & Another vs Odhiambo [2024] KEHC 7688 (25 June 2024) (Judgment) citing several injuries but not indicating the damages that were awarded. It submitted that the award of Kshs 500,000/= was within the proper margin of awards for similar injuries and in this regard, it relied on the case of Nguku Joseph & Another vs Gerald Kihiu Maina [2020] KEHC 7670 where the appellate court upheld an award of Kshs 500,000/= for injuries similar to those that the Appellant herein sustained.
17. It is well settled in law that an appellate court will not disturb an award of general damages unless the same was so manifestly high or inordinately excessive or manifestly or inordinately low that a trial court had proceeded on the wrong principles or misapprehended the law, a principle that was dealt with in the case of Margaret T. Nyaga vs Victoria Wambua Kioko [ 2004] eKLR .
18. It must be understood that money can never really compensate a person who had sustained any injuries. No amount of money could remove the pain that a person went through no matter how small an injury appeared to be. It would in fact be difficult to say with certainty that a particular amount of money would be commensurate with the injuries that a person had sustained. It was merely an assessment of what a court would find to be reasonable in the circumstances to assuage a person who had suffered an injury.
19. Even so, this assessment was not without limits. A court had to ascertain to itself the sum of general damages that courts and especially appellate courts would ordinarily award in respect of a particular injury. A court therefore had to be guided by precedents.
20. Indeed, in the case of Kigaraari vs Aya (1982-88) 1 KAR 768 , it was stated that damages had to be within the limits set out by decided cases and also within the limits the Kenyan economy could afford. This was because high awards would lead to higher insurance premiums which would in turn affect the members of the public.
21. This court also had due regard to the case of Lim vs Camden HA [1980] AC 174 where it was held that even in assessing compensatory damages, the law sought to indemnify the victim for the loss suffered and not to punish the tortfeasor for the injury that he had caused.
22. Similar injuries ought to attract comparable awards as was held i n the cases of Denshire Muteti Wambua vs Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd [2013] eKLR and Godfrey Wamalwa Wamba vs Kyalo Wambua [2018[ eKLR .
23. However, in the quest for consistency, courts also had to recognise that no case was exactly the same as the other. It must be noted that cases cannot contain exact injuries and they are merely for comparison purposes. Each case therefore had to be decided according to its own peculiar circumstances but keeping in mind that any monies awarded had to be sustainable.
24. Towards this end, an appellate court ought not to interfere with the discretion of a trial court merely because it could have awarded a lower or higher sum than that which was awarded by the trial court. It could only interfere where the award of general damages was so manifestly high or inordinately excessive or manifestly or inordinately low that a trial court had proceeded on the wrong principles or misapprehended as was held in the case of Margaret T. Nyaga vs Victoria Wambua Kioko (Supra).
25. The Respondent did not call any witness. Dr Neima Mbaraku (hereinafter referred to as “PW2”), produced Medical Report on behalf of Dr Olima (now deceased) who examined the Appellant. herself. She testified that there was no permanent disability awarded as at 16 th January 2020. She could not ascertain the fracture since she did not examine the Appellant. She said that did not have x-ray fil. She stated that a fracture could be missed during first examination without x-ray.
26. Dr Omboai Haron (sic) was a general practitioner from Bungoma County Referral. His PW designation was not indicated but from the proceedings it appeared that he testified as the third witness. He tendered in evidence the Discharge Summaries Dr Musa Chibai and Dr Joseph Kipasang who he worked with. He stated that all doctors could not complete the Discharge Summary but confirmed that he was one of the doctors who attended to the Appellant herein.
27. He informed the Trial Court that the diagnosis was fracture of pelvis RTA (sic) and that she was admitted on 25 th November 2019 and she was discharged on 27 th December 2019. He could not if the Appellant had recovered but assumed that she may have recovered she never returned to their facility.
28. Notably, the injuries that Dr Olima indicated in his two (2) Medical Reports and in the X-Ray Report from West Kenya Diagnostic & Imaging Centre Limited were different from those that the Appellant was shown to have sustained when she was first treated at Bungoma County Referral Hospital. The said hospital only noted the pelvis injury.
29. As PW 2 stated, Dr Olima was now deceased. PW 2 could not ascertain the fractures as she did not examine the Appellant. In the absence of his clarification of what injuries that the Appellant sustained and bearing in mind that the Appellant was first seen at Bungoma County Referral Hospital which gave a diagnosis of a fracture of a pelvis with no complications.
30. T his court was in agreement with the Respondent’s contention that the injuries enumerated by Dr Olima as reproduced in the Amended Plaint were not the same the injuries that the Appellant was said to have sustained as per the initial Discharge Summary and evidence of Dr Omboai Haron (sic) . This court, therefore, adopted the diagnosis of the said hospital.
31. Remaining faithful to the doctrine of stare decisis and taking the inflationary trends into consideration, it was the considered view of this court that general damages in the sum of Kshs 500,000/= that was awarded by the Trial Court was not unreasonable but it was on the lower side. This court was of the view that a sum of Kshs 750,000/= would be fair compensation for the injuries that she sustained.
32. In arriving at the said conclusion, this court had due regard to the following cases:-
1. George Okewe Osawa v Sukari Industries Limited [2015] eKLR
The court awarded a sum of Kshs 400,000/= to the appellant who had sustained a fracture of the pelvis.
2. Lilian Wanja versus Cyprian Mugendi Igonga & 2 Others (2016) eKLR
The plaintiff therein was awarded Kshs 500,000/= in general damages for a fracture of the pelvis, a dislocation of the hip and multiple soft tissue injuries to the face, chest, the right wrist and elbow.
3. Monicah Wangui Mundia v Simon Njuguna (2020) KEHC 6193 (KLR)
The court awarded general damages in the sum of Kshs 750,000/= where the appellant therein suffered comminuted fracture of the clavicle, soft tissue injury of the left shoulder, fracture of the pelvis and deep cut wound on the left hand.
4. Gakuo vs Mugo [2023] KEHC 874 (KLR)
The plaintiff therein was awarded general damages in the sum of Kshs 750,000/= for fracture of the pelvis, soft tissue injuries of the right temporal parietal region, soft tissue injuries of the chest and soft tissue injuries of the hip joint
33. In the premises foregoing, Grounds of Appeal Nos (3), (4), and (5) were partly merited and the same be and are hereby allowed.
II. INTEREST
34. Although was not a ground of appeal, this court noted that the Trial Court awarded interest on special damages from the date of judgment. It was the considered view of this court that the Appellant had been kept away from the special damages from the inception of the suit. He was thus entitled to interest on special damages from the date of filing suit.
DISPOSITION
35. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the Appellant’s Appeal that was dated 22 nd August 2024 and filed on 21 st September 2024 was partly merited. The effect of this was that the decision of Hon J.A. Agonda (PM) that was delivered at Vihiga in PMCC No 32 of 2024 on 22 nd August 2024 be and is hereby set aside and/or vacated and replaced with an order that judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents for the sum of Kshs 770,168/= made up as follows:-
General Damages Kshs 750,000/=
Special damages Kshs 20,168/=
Kshs 770,168/=
Plus costs and interest at court rates. For the avoidance of doubt, interest on special damages will accrue from the date of filing suit while interest on general damages will accrue from the date of judgment of the lower court.
36. As the Appellant was only partly successful in the Appeal herein, this court deviated from the general principle that costs follow the event and hereby directs that each party will bear its own costs of the Appeal herein.
37. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at VIHIGA this 27 th day of April 2026
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
HCCA NO E049 OF 202413