REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E180 OF 2025
RIFT VALLEY LOGISTICS SHUTTLES
SPRING WEST (K) LIMITED……………………………………..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
JULIUS OKEMWA…………………………………………………RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the judgement and decree of Hon. P.C.Biwott, Chief Magistrate dated 16 th October, 2025 in Ogembo CMC Case No. MCCC/E010/2024)
BETWEEN
JULIUS OKEMWA…………………………………….……………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RIFT VALLEY LOGISTICS SHUTTLES……………………..1 st DEFENDANT
SPRINGWEST (K) LIMITED………………………………….2 nd DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
Background
1. The brief background of this appeal is that Rift Valley Logistics Limited and Spring West (K) Limited were sued in Ogembo CMC Case No. MCCC/E010/2024. The facts at the trial court were that on 24 th January, 2024 the Respondent herein suffered injuries from a road traffic accident involving motor crane registration number KHMA 545C ZOOM LION CRANE which is registered in the name of the appellants. The accident occurred along Kisii-Kilgoris road.
2. The Respondent herein claimed to have been a pedestrian along the Kisii-Kilgoris road when at or near Lenmek Hospital the driver of motor crane registration number KHMA 545C ZOOM LION CRANE veered off the road knocking him down and caused him serious bodily injuries in the nature of a scalp contusion, facial cut wound, chest contusion, abdominal contusion and right shoulder contusion. With respect to the above, the Respondent’s witness, PW1 Mr. Daniel Nyameino, a senior clinical officer at KTRH produced the P3 form as PEX1, Clinic card as PEX2(a), Treatment notes as PEX2(b), the Radiological Report as PEX2(c), Treatment receipts as PEX3, the Medical Report as PEX4(a), a receipt as PEX4(b), Motor vehicle Record and its receipt as PEX5(a) and PEX5(b) respectively.
3. The Appellants in their statement of defence denied ownership of motor crane registration number KHMA 545C, the occurrence of the alleged accident and asserted that if any accident occurred then the same was caused solely or contributed to by the Respondent.
4. The parties entered into a consent on liability on 26 th March, 2025 at 80% to 20% in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants.
5. The Appellant herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of Hon. P.C.Biwott, (CM) dated 16 th October, 2025, which awarded damages of Ksh. 300, 000/= less 20% contribution from the plaintiff and special damages of Ksh. 17, 320/=, preferred this appeal against the assessment of general damages. The grounds relied on were that the trial magistrate erred in law in assessing general damages at a figure so inordinately high that represented an entirely erroneous estimate of compensation for minor soft injuries sustained and; that the trial magistrate was not properly guided by the principles that required the damages to be assessed and the award to be made within the correct estimates in comparable or similar cases.
APPELLANT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the factors that guide a court in assessment of damages are well settled in law and that similar or comparable injuries should attract similar awards. The cases of Penina Waithira Kaburu V LP 2019 eKLR and Odinga Jacktone Ouma V Moureen Achieng Odera [2016] eKLR were cited in support of this submission.
7. It was submitted that recent court awards for comparable minor soft tissue injuries range between Ksh. 80, 000/= to Ksh. 130, 000/= for which reliance was placed on the cases of Ondichi V Mosigi (2025) KEHC 5140 (KLR), Murungi v Kailunga [2024] KEHC 14660 (KLR), Adembesa & Another V Gweno (Civil Appeal E192 of 2023) KEHC 5379 (KLR) and Nyambati Nyawasabu Erick v Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 others[2019] eKLR.
8. Learned counsel proposed that the trial court’s award be substituted with an award between the range of Ksh. 80, 000/= and Ksh. 120, 000/=.
Respondent’s submissions
9. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that an appellate court would only interfere with an award of damages where it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or that the court applied wrong principles. The cases of Butt V Khan [1981] KLR 349 and Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express V Lubia [1982-88] 1 KAR 727 were relied on in support of this submission.
10. Counsel also submitted that the medical evidence before the court confirmed that the Respondent sustained forehead lacerations, bruises, chest injury, blunt and soft tissue injuries and that though the injuries were soft tissue in nature, the injuries were multiple and caused pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
11. Counsel submitted that the authorities relied on by the Appellant were outdated. He cited the cases of Ochieng & Another v Kariuki [2024] KEHC, where the High Court upheld an award of Ksh 400,000/= for multiple soft tissue injuries. It was submitted that the court therein declined to interfere with the trial court award and emphasized that current awards must reflect inflation and comparable modern decisions. It was submitted that based on that authority the award of Ksh 343,200/= was well within the acceptable range.
12. Counsel also relied on the case of Mburugu & Another v Nyongesa [2023] KEHC, where the High Court upheld an award of Ksh. 300,000/= for soft tissue injusies. The court held that awards must reflect inflation and current trends. It was counsel’s submission that as a general trend in recent decisions, the recent High Court decisions show that awards for soft tissue injuries now range between Ksh 250,000 to Ksh 400,000 and above depending on severity and number of injuries and that the award of the trial court fell squarely within this range and could not be said to be excessive.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
13. From the foregoing, the only issue that arises for determination is whether the trial magistrate's assessment of general damages at Kshs. 300,000/= was so inordinately high as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate of the compensation due for the injuries proved, such as to warrant this Court's interference on a first appeal.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
14. It is settled, and neither party disputes, that an appellate court will not disturb an award of general damages merely because it would have arrived at a different figure sitting at first instance. Interference is warranted only where the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, omitted a relevant one, or arrived at a figure so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. See the cases of Butt v Khan [1981] KLR 349 and Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express v Lubia [1982–88] 1 KAR 727.
15. It is therefore upon this court to test the trial court's figure against comparable decided awards for comparable injuries in assessing if the figure arrived at was so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate
16. The proved injuries, as borne out by PEX1–PEX4, are: a scalp contusion, a facial cut wound, a chest contusion, an abdominal contusion, and a right shoulder contusion. The Respondent’s witness who produced the medical report testified that there were multiple soft injuries with no permanent disability. It is considerable that the medical evidence did not show any fracture, loss of consciousness, or assessed permanent disability. This is, in substance, a multi-site soft-tissue and laceration injury.
17. In the cases of Nyambati Nyaswabu Erick v Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 others [2019] KEHC 9928 (KLR) injuries that included deep cut wound to the scalp, blunt injury to the chest, contusion to the back, and contusion to both legs was enhanced from Ksh.55,000/= to Ksh. 90,000/=. In Ephraim Wagura Muthui & 2 others v Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 others [2019] KEHC 8395 (KLR) injuries that included a cut wound to the parietal area of the head, neck contusion, blunt trauma to the chest, cut wound to the leg, and blunt trauma to the back was enhanced from Ksh. 55,000/= to Ksh. 100,000/=. In Philip Musyoka Mutua v Mercy Ngina Syovo [2018] KEHC 644 (KLR) a blunt injury to the head, both shoulders, ribs and back, with deep cut wounds to both ankles and the right knee was awarded Ksh. 120,000/=. In Ondicho v Mosigisi (Civil Appeal E054 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 5140 (KLR) a cut wound to the head and soft tissue injury to the leg, the award was reduced from Ksh. 300,000/= to Ksh. 80,000/=.
18. The Respondent's injuries in five distinct sites of contusion and laceration, with no fracture and no assessed disability sit above the two-site profile in the latter case of Ondicho V Mosigisi. They align mostly with the former cases which sit in the range of Ksh. 90,000/= – Ksh. 120,000/=, which, adjusted for the intervening period and current award levels, would today reasonably sit in the range of Kshs. 150,000–200,000/=.
19. Taking all of the foregoing into account that is the number and nature of the injury sites, the absence of any fracture or permanent disability, and the trend of current comparable awards, I find that a fair and adequate award of general damages is Kshs. 180,000/=. The trial court's award of Kshs. 300,000/= is accordingly found to be inordinately high and an erroneous estimate of the compensation due, warranting this Court's interference.
20. The appeal on quantum succeeds in part. The general damages awarded by the trial court are set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 180,000/=, subject to the agreed apportionment of liability at 80:20 in favour of the Respondent, giving a net figure of Kshs. 144,000/= in general damages.
21. Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
22. It is so ordered.
Judgment read, dated, signed and delivered virtually at BUNGOMA this 30 th days of July, 2026
R. K.Koech
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Nyasimi appearing virtually for the appellant
Mr. Mokaya appearing virtually for the respondent
Roselyne Makali & Enock, court assistants.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
ENDNOTES
[i]
Page 1Page 1KISII HCCA E180 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E180 OF 2025
RIFT VALLEY LOGISTICS SHUTTLES
SPRING WEST (K) LIMITED……………………………………..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
JULIUS OKEMWA…………………………………………………RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the judgement and decree of Hon. P.C.Biwott, Chief Magistrate dated 16 th October, 2025 in Ogembo CMC Case No. MCCC/E010/2024)
BETWEEN
JULIUS OKEMWA…………………………………….……………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RIFT VALLEY LOGISTICS SHUTTLES……………………..1 st DEFENDANT
SPRINGWEST (K) LIMITED………………………………….2 nd DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
Background
1. The brief background of this appeal is that Rift Valley Logistics Limited and Spring West (K) Limited were sued in Ogembo CMC Case No. MCCC/E010/2024. The facts at the trial court were that on 24 th January, 2024 the Respondent herein suffered injuries from a road traffic accident involving motor crane registration number KHMA 545C ZOOM LION CRANE which is registered in the name of the appellants. The accident occurred along Kisii-Kilgoris road.
2. The Respondent herein claimed to have been a pedestrian along the Kisii-Kilgoris road when at or near Lenmek Hospital the driver of motor crane registration number KHMA 545C ZOOM LION CRANE veered off the road knocking him down and caused him serious bodily injuries in the nature of a scalp contusion, facial cut wound, chest contusion, abdominal contusion and right shoulder contusion. With respect to the above, the Respondent’s witness, PW1 Mr. Daniel Nyameino, a senior clinical officer at KTRH produced the P3 form as PEX1, Clinic card as PEX2(a), Treatment notes as PEX2(b), the Radiological Report as PEX2(c), Treatment receipts as PEX3, the Medical Report as PEX4(a), a receipt as PEX4(b), Motor vehicle Record and its receipt as PEX5(a) and PEX5(b) respectively.
3. The Appellants in their statement of defence denied ownership of motor crane registration number KHMA 545C, the occurrence of the alleged accident and asserted that if any accident occurred then the same was caused solely or contributed to by the Respondent.
4. The parties entered into a consent on liability on 26 th March, 2025 at 80% to 20% in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants.
5. The Appellant herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of Hon. P.C.Biwott, (CM) dated 16 th October, 2025, which awarded damages of Ksh. 300, 000/= less 20% contribution from the plaintiff and special damages of Ksh. 17, 320/=, preferred this appeal against the assessment of general damages. The grounds relied on were that the trial magistrate erred in law in assessing general damages at a figure so inordinately high that represented an entirely erroneous estimate of compensation for minor soft injuries sustained and; that the trial magistrate was not properly guided by the principles that required the damages to be assessed and the award to be made within the correct estimates in comparable or similar cases.
APPELLANT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the factors that guide a court in assessment of damages are well settled in law and that similar or comparable injuries should attract similar awards. The cases of Penina Waithira Kaburu V LP 2019 eKLR and Odinga Jacktone Ouma V Moureen Achieng Odera [2016] eKLR were cited in support of this submission.
7. It was submitted that recent court awards for comparable minor soft tissue injuries range between Ksh. 80, 000/= to Ksh. 130, 000/= for which reliance was placed on the cases of Ondichi V Mosigi (2025) KEHC 5140 (KLR), Murungi v Kailunga [2024] KEHC 14660 (KLR), Adembesa & Another V Gweno (Civil Appeal E192 of 2023) KEHC 5379 (KLR) and Nyambati Nyawasabu Erick v Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 others[2019] eKLR.
8. Learned counsel proposed that the trial court’s award be substituted with an award between the range of Ksh. 80, 000/= and Ksh. 120, 000/=.
Respondent’s submissions
9. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that an appellate court would only interfere with an award of damages where it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or that the court applied wrong principles. The cases of Butt V Khan [1981] KLR 349 and Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express V Lubia [1982-88] 1 KAR 727 were relied on in support of this submission.
10. Counsel also submitted that the medical evidence before the court confirmed that the Respondent sustained forehead lacerations, bruises, chest injury, blunt and soft tissue injuries and that though the injuries were soft tissue in nature, the injuries were multiple and caused pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
11. Counsel submitted that the authorities relied on by the Appellant were outdated. He cited the cases of Ochieng & Another v Kariuki [2024] KEHC, where the High Court upheld an award of Ksh 400,000/= for multiple soft tissue injuries. It was submitted that the court therein declined to interfere with the trial court award and emphasized that current awards must reflect inflation and comparable modern decisions. It was submitted that based on that authority the award of Ksh 343,200/= was well within the acceptable range.
12. Counsel also relied on the case of Mburugu & Another v Nyongesa [2023] KEHC, where the High Court upheld an award of Ksh. 300,000/= for soft tissue injusies. The court held that awards must reflect inflation and current trends. It was counsel’s submission that as a general trend in recent decisions, the recent High Court decisions show that awards for soft tissue injuries now range between Ksh 250,000 to Ksh 400,000 and above depending on severity and number of injuries and that the award of the trial court fell squarely within this range and could not be said to be excessive.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
13. From the foregoing, the only issue that arises for determination is whether the trial magistrate's assessment of general damages at Kshs. 300,000/= was so inordinately high as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate of the compensation due for the injuries proved, such as to warrant this Court's interference on a first appeal.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
14. It is settled, and neither party disputes, that an appellate court will not disturb an award of general damages merely because it would have arrived at a different figure sitting at first instance. Interference is warranted only where the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, omitted a relevant one, or arrived at a figure so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. See the cases of Butt v Khan [1981] KLR 349 and Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express v Lubia [1982–88] 1 KAR 727.
15. It is therefore upon this court to test the trial court's figure against comparable decided awards for comparable injuries in assessing if the figure arrived at was so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate
16. The proved injuries, as borne out by PEX1–PEX4, are: a scalp contusion, a facial cut wound, a chest contusion, an abdominal contusion, and a right shoulder contusion. The Respondent’s witness who produced the medical report testified that there were multiple soft injuries with no permanent disability. It is considerable that the medical evidence did not show any fracture, loss of consciousness, or assessed permanent disability. This is, in substance, a multi-site soft-tissue and laceration injury.
17. In the cases of Nyambati Nyaswabu Erick v Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 others [2019] KEHC 9928 (KLR) injuries that included deep cut wound to the scalp, blunt injury to the chest, contusion to the back, and contusion to both legs was enhanced from Ksh.55,000/= to Ksh. 90,000/=. In Ephraim Wagura Muthui & 2 others v Toyota Kenya Limited & 2 others [2019] KEHC 8395 (KLR) injuries that included a cut wound to the parietal area of the head, neck contusion, blunt trauma to the chest, cut wound to the leg, and blunt trauma to the back was enhanced from Ksh. 55,000/= to Ksh. 100,000/=. In Philip Musyoka Mutua v Mercy Ngina Syovo [2018] KEHC 644 (KLR) a blunt injury to the head, both shoulders, ribs and back, with deep cut wounds to both ankles and the right knee was awarded Ksh. 120,000/=. In Ondicho v Mosigisi (Civil Appeal E054 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 5140 (KLR) a cut wound to the head and soft tissue injury to the leg, the award was reduced from Ksh. 300,000/= to Ksh. 80,000/=.
18. The Respondent's injuries in five distinct sites of contusion and laceration, with no fracture and no assessed disability sit above the two-site profile in the latter case of Ondicho V Mosigisi. They align mostly with the former cases which sit in the range of Ksh. 90,000/= – Ksh. 120,000/=, which, adjusted for the intervening period and current award levels, would today reasonably sit in the range of Kshs. 150,000–200,000/=.
19. Taking all of the foregoing into account that is the number and nature of the injury sites, the absence of any fracture or permanent disability, and the trend of current comparable awards, I find that a fair and adequate award of general damages is Kshs. 180,000/=. The trial court's award of Kshs. 300,000/= is accordingly found to be inordinately high and an erroneous estimate of the compensation due, warranting this Court's interference.
20. The appeal on quantum succeeds in part. The general damages awarded by the trial court are set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs. 180,000/=, subject to the agreed apportionment of liability at 80:20 in favour of the Respondent, giving a net figure of Kshs. 144,000/= in general damages.
21. Each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
22. It is so ordered.
Judgment read, dated, signed and delivered virtually at BUNGOMA this 30 th days of July, 2026
R. K.Koech
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Nyasimi appearing virtually for the appellant
Mr. Mokaya appearing virtually for the respondent
Roselyne Makali & Enock, court assistants.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
ENDNOTES
[i]
Page 1Page 1KISII HCCA E180 OF 2025