INTRODUCTION
1. In her decision of 30th January 2025, the Learned Trial Magistrate apportioned liability at the ratio of 90:10 in favour of the Appellant as against the Respondent and entered judgment in the following terms: -
Loss of expectation of life Kshs 80,000/=
Loss of dependency Kshs 800,000/=
Pain and suffering Kshs 50,000/=
Special damages Kshs 15,000/=
Kshs 945,000/=
Less 10% contribution Kshs 94,500/=
Total Kshs 850,500/=
Plus costs of the suit and interest thereon at court rates.
2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 30th January 2025, the Appellant herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 31st January 2025. He relied on eleven (11) grounds of appeal.
3. His written submissions were dated 6th October 2025 while those of the Respondent were dated 4th February 2026. The Judgment herein is based on the said written submissions which parties relied upon in their entirety.
ANALYSIS OF THE DISPUTE
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 Memorandum of Appeal and the respective parties’ written submissions, it appeared to this court that all the grounds of appeal were related and the issues that had been placed before it for determination were as follows: -
Whether or not the quantum that was awarded was inordinately low in the circumstances warranting interference by this court.
7. The Appellant submitted that there was evidence that the deceased was survived by two minors and the Appellant who were dependent on her. He also pointed out that there was proof that the deceased was a shop assistant/attendant and hence, the award on loss of dependency ought to have been based on proved income or multiplicand. He contended that though no evidence was adduced to prove the deceased’s earnings, the evidence that she was working as a shop attendant was not disputed by the Respondent. He was emphatic that the award of Kshs 800,000/= did not reflect the current economic situation, inflation and minors who were still in school.
8. The Appellant relied in the case of Estate of Agnes Ntinyari Murungi- Deceased vs Kithinji & another (Civil appeal E042 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 17732 (KLR), where an award of Kshs 900,000/= was set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs 2,000,000/= for loss of dependency; Cheruiyot & another vs GOO & another (Civil Appeal E004 & E005 of 2023 (consolidated) [2025] KEHC 7237 (KLR), where there was no proof of earnings or engagement and court awarded Kshs 1,500,000/= and Francis Odhiambo Nyunia & 2 others vs Josephine Malala Owinyi (suing as the legal administrator of the estate of Kevin Osore Rapando (deceased)) (2020) KEHC 964 (KLR) where a global sum of Kshs 1,500,000/= was awarded to a deceased aged 17 years among other cases.
9. He contended that in the above cases, the victims were minors but in the instant case, the deceased was a shop attendant whose wage was recognised under the minimum wage and he relied on Mose & another vs Kakai (Civil Appeal 33 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 1766 (KLR) where the court cited Gachoki Gachuri suing as legal representative of the estate of James Kinyua Gachoki (deceased) vs John Ngiga Njagi (2015) eKLR where the court opined that where there was no proof of income, the court would adopt the minimum wage as per the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order. He also relied on Jacob Ayiga Maruja & another vs Simeone Obayo CA Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2002 [2005] eKLR where the court abhorred the contention that the only way of proving profession and earning of a person was by way of production of documents.
10. He faulted the Trial Court for not taking judicial notice that he had obtained grant and one of the conditions for being granted a grant was a letter from the chief. He also pointed out that the hearing was conducted virtually and the Trial Court never requested to cross check the original birth certificates and, therefore, the conclusion by the Trial Court that he was guilty of perjury was erroneous.
11. He maintained that the deceased’s work and minimum wage was ascertainable and he urged the court to set aside the award of Kshs 800,000/= and substitute with an award of Kshs 4,745,584/= resulting from 17,447.50 x 34 x 12 x 2/3.
12. On his part, the Respondent invoked Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules and submitted that on 9th December 2025, the Deputy Registrar noted that the record of appeal filed was defective as it introduced documents that were not in the trial bundle to wit, birth certificates for the two minors, identity card for Jamlick Mbuba, affidavit of marriage and the chief’s letter which documents the Appellant referred to in his submissions. He urged the court to expunged the said documents from the record.
13. He submitted that the Trial Court applied the correct principles of law and properly exercised its discretion therefore, this court had no basis to interfere with the award. He pointed out that where there was no proof of the deceased's income, the court was entitled to adopt a global award rather than a speculative multiplicand and multiplier as was held in Husaka Motors Limited & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of Pricillah Asubila Makani Deceased) vs Indechi another (Civil Appeal E829 of 2022) 2025 KEHC 2881(KLR) among other cases.
14. He pointed out that dependency is a matter of fact and must be proved by evidence. He argued that though the Appellant alleged that the deceased worked as a shop attendant, there was no proof to substantiate his allegations and he placed reliance on the case of Kimathi vs Kithinji another (Civil Appeal E210 of 2023) 2024 KEHC14533(KLR) where the court emphasized that the Appellant had a duty to prove deceased’s earning and found that exact monthly earnings was not proved.
15. He was emphatic that though documentary proof of earnings is not mandatory, as was held in Jacob Ayiga Maruja & another vs Simeon Obayo (supra), some credible corroborative evidence was required, and the same was absent in the instant case. He contended that the court in the above case did not exempt the Plaintiff from producing the required proof in line with section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act but only that the said proof need not be documentary. He distinguished the above case with the instant case and pointed out that in the above case, the assertions regarding the deceased's income and self-employment were adequately supported by the testimony of the Respondent, the deceased's brother, and the widow but in the instant case, he stated that if the Appellant lacked documentary proof of the deceased's actual earnings, he could easily have adduced alternative evidence like calling the alleged employer to confirm the nature of the deceased's employment.
16. He therefore found credence in the case of Michael Rimiri M'ingetha & another vs Zipporah Mukomua M'ituri [2020] eKLR, where the court stated that where there was no documentary evidence, the Court would then resort to the principle of lump sum.
17. He further argued that there was no proof that the Appellant personally depended on the deceased since during cross-examination, the Appellant could not even identify the name of the shop where the deceased was allegedly employed as a shop attendant. He was emphatic that in absence of the said proof, the trial magistrate correctly adopted the global award approach and gave cogent reasons for opting for the global approach. He emphasized that even though this court was inclined to adopt the minimum wage approach on appeal, it could not substitute its own discretion in place of the legitimate exercise of discretion by the Trial Court.
18. He maintained that the award of Kshs 800,000/= was fair and reasonable and on the higher side and he cited Gilbert Kimatare Naira & another (Suing as personal representative of the Estate of Jackline Sein LeMay lan (Deceased) vs Civico Limited [2021] eKLR where a lump sum award for Kshs 600,000/= was upheld in respect of a deceased person aged 31 years old and where income was not proved and Oyugi Judith & another vs Fredrick Odhiambo Ongong & 3 others [2014] eKLR where the court overturned the decision of the lower court in which it had used a multiplier/multiplicand rule in the absence of cogent evidence on income and awarded a global sum of Kshs 700,000/= each for loss of dependency in respect of deceased persons aged 28 years and 30 years old.
19. He submitted that the Appellant's proposal of Kshs 4,745,584/= was based on speculative arithmetic, was excessive, unsupported by evidence and contrary to the settled principle that damages should not be founded on guesswork. He therefore urged this court not to disturb the award of damages awarded by the Trial Court.
20. Notably, the record shows that vide a plaint dated 31st October 2022, it was stated that the deceased was a lawful pedestrian along North Airport Road when motor vehicle registration no. KCG 259U was carelessly driven causing the fatal accident that led to the death of the deceased. The Respondent was blamed for the occurrence of the accident and the Appellant prayed for general and special damages. It was also averred that she was survived by the Appellant, her father-in-law, aunt and two children.
21. The Respondent filed a defence statement dated 9th June 2023 and denied the occurrence of the accident and particulars of negligence attributed to him and blamed the deceased for the occurrence of the accident. He also denied the particulars of special damages and loss to the deceased’s estate.
22. A perusal of the original Trial Court proceedings (note that typed proceedings were not part of the record filed) showed that the Appellant testified as PW1. He informed the Trial Court that the deceased was his wife and she was working in an Mpesa shop as a shopkeeper and was earning Kshs 25,000/= as monthly income. He also testified that she was the breadwinner of the family and they had two children.
23. On being cross examined, he testified that the deceased’s occupation was written to be business woman in the application for death certificate but that was scratched out and written as housewife but it was his father who did that. In the death certificate, her occupation was written as housewife. He also testified that he had no marriage certificate and the birth certificate for Yvone was not in the file.
24. He stated on re-examination that his father was the one who made the application for death certificate and erred by recording that the deceased was a housewife. This Court will not dwell on those issues since they are before it but will focus to establish if the Trial Court erred in its findings specifically if the Court exercised its discretion well.
25. This court have considered respective submissions by the parties and the evidence that was produced before the Trial Court. As seen earlier, the main issue for determination is on the award of damages for loss of dependency.
26. The Appellant appears to contradict themselves in their submissions, on hand in paragraph 20 admits that no evidence was tabled in court to prove the deceased earnings, he went ahead and suggested use of Kshs.17,447 as her monthly income. This Court to start off is of the view that the use of global sum award is the appropriate method to be used since the Appellant’s income cannot be proved by evidence. There is no letter from employer confirming the salary, there is no pays lip, no employment contract, no Mpesa statements or any other evidence that would demonstrate monthly salary.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. The next issue now is whether the award of Kshs.800,000 awarded by the trial court for loss of dependency is too low. Both parties have gone to great heights to support their positions and what is left is for this Court to determine if the Trial Court’s award was within the limits for similar cases/circumstances.
28. The principles for interfering with an award of damages are well settled. In Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini -vs- A M Lubia and Olive Lubia [1982-88] 1 KAR 727 it was observed that an appellate Court should not interfere with a trial Court’s discretion in making awards unless it is satisfied that the trial Court took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant one or that the amount awarded is so inordinately low or high that it must represent a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
29. The Court of Appeal in Cherangany Hills Ltd & another v Wanyama (Suing as the Administrator to the Estate of Brian Khisa Wanyama) [2025] KECA 1030 (KLR) quoted the case of Roger Dainty vs. Mwinyi Omar Haji & Ano. [2004] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that to ascertain a reasonable multiplier in each case, the court should consider relevant factors like the income of the deceased, the kind of work he was engaged in before his death, the prospects of promotion and his expectations of working life. However, the Court held that if the multiplicand cannot be ascertained with any precision, courts can make a global award, which by no means is not a standard or conventional figure but is an award that will always be subject to the circumstances of each particular case.
30. In Chabhadiya Visram v Agnes Nafula Wakoli [2019] KECA 1052 (KLR) the Court of Appeal upheld damages assessed at a global figure of Kshs. 500,000/= for loss of dependency. The court held that;
“On the assessment of damages, the evidence was that the deceased was a trader with an income which he used to maintain his family including paying school fees for his children. Although there was no specific evidence adduced regarding the actual amount of income, it was open to the learned judge given the evidence that was available, to assess the amount of damages doing the best that he could. We are not persuaded that the approach of a global award as adopted by the learned judge was wrong. We find the awards made reasonable and have no reason to interfere.
31. In Kisii HCCA No. 39 of 2014; Marwanga Jeffern –Vs-Jeckton Ochieng’ & Anor, an award of Kshs 1,600,000/= for loss of dependency was awarded for a deceased who died at the age of 30 and was survived by a widower and a 10-year-old son.
32. In Geoffrey Obiero & another vs Kenya Power Lighting Corporation Limited & another [2019] eKLR, the court awarded a global sum of Kshs 1,200,000/- for loss of dependency where the deceased was a 25-year-old man and there was no evidence to show his income or the nature of work he used to undertake.
33. In Zachary Abusa Magoma vs Julius asiago O & Jane Ogentoto & Jane Kerubo Asiago [2020] eKLR, the trial court’s global award of Kshs 2,000,000/- for loss of dependency was set aside as being excessive for a deceased who died at 28 years of age and substituted it with an award of Kshs 1,500,000/-.
34. Having taken time to do a comparative analysis of similar cases, I reach to the conclusion that the Kshs.800,000 awarded by the Trial Court is low and I enhance the same to Kshs.1,200,000.
35. The rest of the awards by the Trial Court is affirmed including the 10% contribution by the Appellant.
36. Each party will bear their costs of this Appeal.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 24th day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
No appearance for the Appellant.
Onyango Learned Counsel for the Respondents
Michael – Court Assistant.
1. In her decision of 30th January 2025, the Learned Trial Magistrate apportioned liability at the ratio of 90:10 in favour of the Appellant as against the Respondent and entered judgment in the following terms: -
Loss of expectation of life Kshs 80,000/=
Loss of dependency Kshs 800,000/=
Pain and suffering Kshs 50,000/=
Special damages Kshs 15,000/=
Kshs 945,000/=
Less 10% contribution Kshs 94,500/=
Total Kshs 850,500/=
Plus costs of the suit and interest thereon at court rates.
2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 30th January 2025, the Appellant herein filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 31st January 2025. He relied on eleven (11) grounds of appeal.
3. His written submissions were dated 6th October 2025 while those of the Respondent were dated 4th February 2026. The Judgment herein is based on the said written submissions which parties relied upon in their entirety.
ANALYSIS OF THE DISPUTE
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 Memorandum of Appeal and the respective parties’ written submissions, it appeared to this court that all the grounds of appeal were related and the issues that had been placed before it for determination were as follows: -
Whether or not the quantum that was awarded was inordinately low in the circumstances warranting interference by this court.
7. The Appellant submitted that there was evidence that the deceased was survived by two minors and the Appellant who were dependent on her. He also pointed out that there was proof that the deceased was a shop assistant/attendant and hence, the award on loss of dependency ought to have been based on proved income or multiplicand. He contended that though no evidence was adduced to prove the deceased’s earnings, the evidence that she was working as a shop attendant was not disputed by the Respondent. He was emphatic that the award of Kshs 800,000/= did not reflect the current economic situation, inflation and minors who were still in school.
8. The Appellant relied in the case of Estate of Agnes Ntinyari Murungi- Deceased vs Kithinji & another (Civil appeal E042 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 17732 (KLR), where an award of Kshs 900,000/= was set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs 2,000,000/= for loss of dependency; Cheruiyot & another vs GOO & another (Civil Appeal E004 & E005 of 2023 (consolidated) [2025] KEHC 7237 (KLR), where there was no proof of earnings or engagement and court awarded Kshs 1,500,000/= and Francis Odhiambo Nyunia & 2 others vs Josephine Malala Owinyi (suing as the legal administrator of the estate of Kevin Osore Rapando (deceased)) (2020) KEHC 964 (KLR) where a global sum of Kshs 1,500,000/= was awarded to a deceased aged 17 years among other cases.
9. He contended that in the above cases, the victims were minors but in the instant case, the deceased was a shop attendant whose wage was recognised under the minimum wage and he relied on Mose & another vs Kakai (Civil Appeal 33 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 1766 (KLR) where the court cited Gachoki Gachuri suing as legal representative of the estate of James Kinyua Gachoki (deceased) vs John Ngiga Njagi (2015) eKLR where the court opined that where there was no proof of income, the court would adopt the minimum wage as per the Regulation of Wages (General) Amendment Order. He also relied on Jacob Ayiga Maruja & another vs Simeone Obayo CA Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2002 [2005] eKLR where the court abhorred the contention that the only way of proving profession and earning of a person was by way of production of documents.
10. He faulted the Trial Court for not taking judicial notice that he had obtained grant and one of the conditions for being granted a grant was a letter from the chief. He also pointed out that the hearing was conducted virtually and the Trial Court never requested to cross check the original birth certificates and, therefore, the conclusion by the Trial Court that he was guilty of perjury was erroneous.
11. He maintained that the deceased’s work and minimum wage was ascertainable and he urged the court to set aside the award of Kshs 800,000/= and substitute with an award of Kshs 4,745,584/= resulting from 17,447.50 x 34 x 12 x 2/3.
12. On his part, the Respondent invoked Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules and submitted that on 9th December 2025, the Deputy Registrar noted that the record of appeal filed was defective as it introduced documents that were not in the trial bundle to wit, birth certificates for the two minors, identity card for Jamlick Mbuba, affidavit of marriage and the chief’s letter which documents the Appellant referred to in his submissions. He urged the court to expunged the said documents from the record.
13. He submitted that the Trial Court applied the correct principles of law and properly exercised its discretion therefore, this court had no basis to interfere with the award. He pointed out that where there was no proof of the deceased's income, the court was entitled to adopt a global award rather than a speculative multiplicand and multiplier as was held in Husaka Motors Limited & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of Pricillah Asubila Makani Deceased) vs Indechi another (Civil Appeal E829 of 2022) 2025 KEHC 2881(KLR) among other cases.
14. He pointed out that dependency is a matter of fact and must be proved by evidence. He argued that though the Appellant alleged that the deceased worked as a shop attendant, there was no proof to substantiate his allegations and he placed reliance on the case of Kimathi vs Kithinji another (Civil Appeal E210 of 2023) 2024 KEHC14533(KLR) where the court emphasized that the Appellant had a duty to prove deceased’s earning and found that exact monthly earnings was not proved.
15. He was emphatic that though documentary proof of earnings is not mandatory, as was held in Jacob Ayiga Maruja & another vs Simeon Obayo (supra), some credible corroborative evidence was required, and the same was absent in the instant case. He contended that the court in the above case did not exempt the Plaintiff from producing the required proof in line with section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act but only that the said proof need not be documentary. He distinguished the above case with the instant case and pointed out that in the above case, the assertions regarding the deceased's income and self-employment were adequately supported by the testimony of the Respondent, the deceased's brother, and the widow but in the instant case, he stated that if the Appellant lacked documentary proof of the deceased's actual earnings, he could easily have adduced alternative evidence like calling the alleged employer to confirm the nature of the deceased's employment.
16. He therefore found credence in the case of Michael Rimiri M'ingetha & another vs Zipporah Mukomua M'ituri [2020] eKLR, where the court stated that where there was no documentary evidence, the Court would then resort to the principle of lump sum.
17. He further argued that there was no proof that the Appellant personally depended on the deceased since during cross-examination, the Appellant could not even identify the name of the shop where the deceased was allegedly employed as a shop attendant. He was emphatic that in absence of the said proof, the trial magistrate correctly adopted the global award approach and gave cogent reasons for opting for the global approach. He emphasized that even though this court was inclined to adopt the minimum wage approach on appeal, it could not substitute its own discretion in place of the legitimate exercise of discretion by the Trial Court.
18. He maintained that the award of Kshs 800,000/= was fair and reasonable and on the higher side and he cited Gilbert Kimatare Naira & another (Suing as personal representative of the Estate of Jackline Sein LeMay lan (Deceased) vs Civico Limited [2021] eKLR where a lump sum award for Kshs 600,000/= was upheld in respect of a deceased person aged 31 years old and where income was not proved and Oyugi Judith & another vs Fredrick Odhiambo Ongong & 3 others [2014] eKLR where the court overturned the decision of the lower court in which it had used a multiplier/multiplicand rule in the absence of cogent evidence on income and awarded a global sum of Kshs 700,000/= each for loss of dependency in respect of deceased persons aged 28 years and 30 years old.
19. He submitted that the Appellant's proposal of Kshs 4,745,584/= was based on speculative arithmetic, was excessive, unsupported by evidence and contrary to the settled principle that damages should not be founded on guesswork. He therefore urged this court not to disturb the award of damages awarded by the Trial Court.
20. Notably, the record shows that vide a plaint dated 31st October 2022, it was stated that the deceased was a lawful pedestrian along North Airport Road when motor vehicle registration no. KCG 259U was carelessly driven causing the fatal accident that led to the death of the deceased. The Respondent was blamed for the occurrence of the accident and the Appellant prayed for general and special damages. It was also averred that she was survived by the Appellant, her father-in-law, aunt and two children.
21. The Respondent filed a defence statement dated 9th June 2023 and denied the occurrence of the accident and particulars of negligence attributed to him and blamed the deceased for the occurrence of the accident. He also denied the particulars of special damages and loss to the deceased’s estate.
22. A perusal of the original Trial Court proceedings (note that typed proceedings were not part of the record filed) showed that the Appellant testified as PW1. He informed the Trial Court that the deceased was his wife and she was working in an Mpesa shop as a shopkeeper and was earning Kshs 25,000/= as monthly income. He also testified that she was the breadwinner of the family and they had two children.
23. On being cross examined, he testified that the deceased’s occupation was written to be business woman in the application for death certificate but that was scratched out and written as housewife but it was his father who did that. In the death certificate, her occupation was written as housewife. He also testified that he had no marriage certificate and the birth certificate for Yvone was not in the file.
24. He stated on re-examination that his father was the one who made the application for death certificate and erred by recording that the deceased was a housewife. This Court will not dwell on those issues since they are before it but will focus to establish if the Trial Court erred in its findings specifically if the Court exercised its discretion well.
25. This court have considered respective submissions by the parties and the evidence that was produced before the Trial Court. As seen earlier, the main issue for determination is on the award of damages for loss of dependency.
26. The Appellant appears to contradict themselves in their submissions, on hand in paragraph 20 admits that no evidence was tabled in court to prove the deceased earnings, he went ahead and suggested use of Kshs.17,447 as her monthly income. This Court to start off is of the view that the use of global sum award is the appropriate method to be used since the Appellant’s income cannot be proved by evidence. There is no letter from employer confirming the salary, there is no pays lip, no employment contract, no Mpesa statements or any other evidence that would demonstrate monthly salary.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. The next issue now is whether the award of Kshs.800,000 awarded by the trial court for loss of dependency is too low. Both parties have gone to great heights to support their positions and what is left is for this Court to determine if the Trial Court’s award was within the limits for similar cases/circumstances.
28. The principles for interfering with an award of damages are well settled. In Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini -vs- A M Lubia and Olive Lubia [1982-88] 1 KAR 727 it was observed that an appellate Court should not interfere with a trial Court’s discretion in making awards unless it is satisfied that the trial Court took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant one or that the amount awarded is so inordinately low or high that it must represent a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
29. The Court of Appeal in Cherangany Hills Ltd & another v Wanyama (Suing as the Administrator to the Estate of Brian Khisa Wanyama) [2025] KECA 1030 (KLR) quoted the case of Roger Dainty vs. Mwinyi Omar Haji & Ano. [2004] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that to ascertain a reasonable multiplier in each case, the court should consider relevant factors like the income of the deceased, the kind of work he was engaged in before his death, the prospects of promotion and his expectations of working life. However, the Court held that if the multiplicand cannot be ascertained with any precision, courts can make a global award, which by no means is not a standard or conventional figure but is an award that will always be subject to the circumstances of each particular case.
30. In Chabhadiya Visram v Agnes Nafula Wakoli [2019] KECA 1052 (KLR) the Court of Appeal upheld damages assessed at a global figure of Kshs. 500,000/= for loss of dependency. The court held that;
“On the assessment of damages, the evidence was that the deceased was a trader with an income which he used to maintain his family including paying school fees for his children. Although there was no specific evidence adduced regarding the actual amount of income, it was open to the learned judge given the evidence that was available, to assess the amount of damages doing the best that he could. We are not persuaded that the approach of a global award as adopted by the learned judge was wrong. We find the awards made reasonable and have no reason to interfere.
31. In Kisii HCCA No. 39 of 2014; Marwanga Jeffern –Vs-Jeckton Ochieng’ & Anor, an award of Kshs 1,600,000/= for loss of dependency was awarded for a deceased who died at the age of 30 and was survived by a widower and a 10-year-old son.
32. In Geoffrey Obiero & another vs Kenya Power Lighting Corporation Limited & another [2019] eKLR, the court awarded a global sum of Kshs 1,200,000/- for loss of dependency where the deceased was a 25-year-old man and there was no evidence to show his income or the nature of work he used to undertake.
33. In Zachary Abusa Magoma vs Julius asiago O & Jane Ogentoto & Jane Kerubo Asiago [2020] eKLR, the trial court’s global award of Kshs 2,000,000/- for loss of dependency was set aside as being excessive for a deceased who died at 28 years of age and substituted it with an award of Kshs 1,500,000/-.
34. Having taken time to do a comparative analysis of similar cases, I reach to the conclusion that the Kshs.800,000 awarded by the Trial Court is low and I enhance the same to Kshs.1,200,000.
35. The rest of the awards by the Trial Court is affirmed including the 10% contribution by the Appellant.
36. Each party will bear their costs of this Appeal.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI through the Microsoft online platform on this 24th day of July 2026.
HON.LEPARASHAO PATRICIA
JUDGE
Judgment virtually delivered in the presence of:
No appearance for the Appellant.
Onyango Learned Counsel for the Respondents
Michael – Court Assistant.