SIMON KATIKU MUNYWOKI VS ERICK MUTEVU MWANIKI

1. On   17/6/2020 the plaintiff/appellant filed SIMON    KATIKU MUNYWOKI   a plaint suing the defendant/respondent ERIC    MUTEVU   MWANIKI  for general    and special   damages. 
2.   His  claim   was  that  in  the  month of July, 2017  ,  the  plaintiff  while  going about  his  affairs  at  Muusini  Market,  the  defendant attacked  him,  kicking   him - and   caused    him  injuries     to  wit injuries to the stomach/abdomen, spleen ,  small intestine,  bowel & colon.  As  a  result   he   had  to  seek  medical  care  -   suffering  loss   and   damage  -  he  paid  Kshs.  1000  for the P3  form,  medical  expenses  at   Kshs. 500,000  and   travelling   expenses  at  Kshs.  22,300,  he   sought  judgment  against  the defendant  for  these &  general  damage   damages  for  pain  and  suffering.  
3. In the  plaint,  he     pleaded  that  the reported  the  matter  at  Kavumbu  Police   Station  and was  issued  with OB 21/13/04/2019 -  and  that  the  family  of  the defendant pleaded   with him  -  he  withdrew  the  claim     from  the  police   and they  entered    into  a  written   agreement whereby  the  defendant’s  parents  would  pay  him  Kshs. 300,000. That following     their refusal to pay the money, he had filed this suit. 
4. The plaint   was accompanied     by his   statement   and a bundle of   documents - treatment notes, receipts   etc. 
5.  The   defendant   filed    defence   on 19/10/2020   and  denied   the  allegations,  and averred     that  the plaintiff  sustained  injuries   when  he  threw     himself    in the  air  trying  to  kick   the  bar  owner   with whom  they  had    an  altercation.   That the defendant’s    parents    did agree to pay the  plaintiff Kshs.  300,000   paid him 200,000 leaving   a balance of Kshs.  100,000. Attached    to the defence is the defendant’s statement.
6. The matter proceeded undefended on 17/3/2022. The   plaintiff   testified   thus, “I am Simon Katiku  Munywoki.  I don’t work.   I wish    to adopt my statement as evidence    in chief.  I wish to   produce   my list of documents    as exhibits    - 1 - 43 respectively.   I pray   for compensation.”
7. In the   judgment    delivered  on  14/7/2022    the learned     trial   magistrate    found  that  the plaintiff’s   claim   had  not  been contested  and   found  liability against the defendant   at  100%.  
8. On damages  - the  court  found   that  upon  considering    the  medical  reports   she  found  no  evidence of  any  injuries     caused  by    a  physical  attack  -   that  “  despite   proof    that  the  plaintiff  was  battered by the defendant -  there  was  no  connection /nexus   laid     between       the alleged  battery and the  diagnosis “ and  proceeded  to  dismiss  the suit. 
9. The  appellant  was  aggrieved   and  filed   appeal on 22/3/2023  on the grounds that; - that  the  learned trial  magistrate    was  in  error   by finding that  there  was  no  nexus    between  the  alleged   battery  and  the illness  the  appellant    was  diagnosed  with;  in failing   to award   damages  despite  finding the defendant  100%  liable;  by  ignoring    the fact  that    the  respondent  had  previously   admitted   battering     the appellant.  The  appellant   sought    from court -  that  the  appeal  be allowed  and that  an  order  be  made   that  the  appellant is  entitled  to  compensation   with  general     and special   damages  with  costs  to  him.
10. The appellant’s counsel  filed submissions   firstly   reminding      this  court      of  its  duty  as  1st   appellate   court as  held  in Selle  &  Anor  vs  Associated  M/Boat   Co.  Ltd  & others  (1968)   EA  123  the  duty  to  re-assess,   by  a  way  of  retrial,  and draw  its  own  conclusion  aware  of  the fact  that it  neither heard   or  saw  the witnesses  testify.
11. It  was  submitted  that  the learned  trial  court erred  in  determining  that  without   a medical    legal report she could not award damages.   The appellant   cited  Esther  Chepkemei Ngecher  vs  John  Kung’u  &  Charles   Muthoka    [2022]   eKLR for the proposition   that  the    absence  of  a  medical  legal  report  does not    oust    the  fact   that  the appellant  sustained  injuries  in the said  accident. 
12. Counsel submitted   that with respect to   general   damages   the appellant was entitled to Kshs.  2,000,000   and cited  Wendy    Martin  vs   IL Ngwesi  Co. Ltd    &  2 others  [2008] eKLR  - to  the effect  that  there is;
‘  a  non  pecuniary   damage  that  concerns   loss of  physical  amenity,  pain,  shock & suffering.   This  court   is  required  to take  into  account  any pain and  suffering   which  can  be  “attributed the injury   and to  any consequential   surgical  operation.  It is an award that must cover   past and future pain…”
13. Counsel    also  relied    on Alex  Muthinji   Njeke &  Anor vs  Attorney  General   [2017]eKLR -  where  the plaintiff   sustained  multiple  small   intestine  lacerations,  perforated  traverse  colon,  contused  ormentum,  small  liver  laceration  with resultant  faecal  soiling   and hemoperitoneum  and the court  awarded  Kshs.  3,500,000.
14. I  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions,  the  record, the  grounds   of  appeal   and two  issues  arise for  determination   - whether    the   plaintiff  established   liability   on part   of  the defendant and  if  so  how  much general damages is awardable. 
15. On liability-in the subordinate  court  the plaintiff  submitted    that  plaintiff  had  pursuant  to  Section  107 of  the Evidence    Act ,  the plaintiff  had  proved   that  the defendant   was  liable    for  his injuries  that he  had presented  his case  -  and  the defendant     had  not  controverted  that case  and hence  -  on the strength  of  CMC  Aviation  Co.  Ltd  vs  Kenya  Airways  Ltd  Cruisair    Ltd)   [1978]  eKLR;   Trust   Bank  Limited  vs   Paramount  Universal  Bank   Limited  &   2 others (Milimani) HCCS  No.  1243/2001;  Karuru  Munyororo  vs  Joseph  Ndumia   Murage     &  Anor    Nyeri   HCC  95/1988   all for the  proposition   that  pleadings    are  not  evidence  -  and  the  case cannot  be determined  form the  pleadings  only – pleadings  must  be   supported     by  evidence;  and failure  by  the defendant   to  adduce   any  evidence  leaves  the plaintiff’s    evidence  uncontroverted  and therefore  unchallenged  -  it  becomes  evidence  that  a  court     of  law  should  be able  to  act  upon. 
16. So, what   is the plaintiff’s evidence?    
17. The  appellant    adopted his    statement    as  evidence  -    that  statement  is  to the effect  that  in  July , 2017   he walked    into  bar in  the  local  market  to buy  cigarettes.  He paid   with Kshs.  1000 note  -  the  bar  owner  did  not  have  enough  charge   -  gave  him  Kshs.  750 and asked    him to wait   for his Kshs.  200.  He sat on a chair    to wait - but   the chair   broke.  The  bar  owner  pushed  him out  of the  bar  -  an altercation  ensued -  and  she  threw  him out of the bar.   That   it  was while  he  was outside  the bar  that  a  person  he  did  not  know  came   from the   bar  and  without  a  word,  kicked him  in the stomach.   He felt a lot of pain.  The following    day    he went  to  hospital – Makueni  County Referral   Hospital   then was referred  to  Makindu  Hospital   for an operation,  there  he  was informed   that  one of  his  kidneys  was damaged and required  to be removed.   He  continued   with treatment   in various  hospitals  until  August,  2019  -  and  by 17/6/2020   he  felt  the  need  for  constant  checkup.  That    subsequent to the assault   he reported to the police station at Kavumbu vide   OB No.  21/12/04/2019.  That  the  family  of the  assailant   pleaded  with him  to  withdraw  the  complaint and they  would   pay Kshs.  300,000 and in default    he would be at liberty to pursue the case.  He said    the family had paid   him Kshs.  200,000 and refused to pay the balance   of Kshs.  100,000.That    though   they agreed   at Kshs.  300,000 he had incurred Kshs.  500,000 and now    he sought    general damage and special damage for the injuries   he sustained. 
18. I  have  perused   the  alleged   admission -  it  speaks   about  OB  20/25/03/2019  about  “withdrawal  statement”  between     the  plaintiff  and the defendant on 13/4/2019.  Another   OB ref No.  21/13/04/2019 is also   mentioned.
19. There    is  an agreement   dated  13th  April -  which  states  that  “the parents  of  Eric  Mutevu  Mwaniki   have  agreed  to  refund  the  medical   expenses   to the tune  of  Kshs.  300,000 … failure   to pay the assailant   … shall   be prosecuted.”
20. First  -  I  find    no  evidence  of  any report  of  an assault at  Kavumbu   Police Station  in July, 2017.  While  perusing   the document  -  I came  across  a  note  dated  25/3/2019   stating    that  on that  day   an unnamed   person  writing    from the office   of  the  Assistant    Chief    Muusini  Sublocation   had written    stating    that  Simon   Katiku  Munywoki    had  reported  to the office  that  he had  been assaulted  by  a  person  known  to him on  5/7/2017.
21. A look at the report   proves   that it was   being made 2 years after    the alleged    assault.  The alleged  assailant  is  not  even  named   when the report  is  made to the Assistant   Chief  -  yet   this  time  the appellant  knows  who  assaulted him  and if   he  is  to be  believed  - he  is  about  to  enter    into  an  agreement    with the parent  of   this  person  for  compensation. 
22.   The  appellant’s  statement  says he was  assaulted   in July, 2017  no  date  is  given in the plaint  or his  statement,  a  date  is only  found  in this  note  allegedly    by  the  assistant  chief.
There is no OB for July, 2017. There  is    an OB  for  April, 2019 - clearly  the  agreement  being  relied  on  and   the alleged  assault   in 2017  are  not   being  connected  here. 
23. True,  the  parents  of the defendant/respondent   entered  into  an agreement in  2019  for  refund  of  medical  expenses, true  - there  is  an agreement to  withdraw  an alleged   complaint  from   the police  but  these   are not  connected  in any  way  with the alleged   assault  in 2017 whatever medical    expenses  are  being  refunded  to the appellant  -  I am    at  pains  to  connect those  documents  with  the assault   alleged   to have happened  in 2017. 
24. In  addition,   I have  perused    the medical   documents -    treatment  chits,  etc  - they  are  for  2018,  2019 
One    report says (1/4/19) that   the   appellant   had fistula/local mesenteritis;  Another   note says (11/3/19) Septic incisional   wound; Also another says he had perforated gastric ulcer; Another  of  12/3/19 says   that  “pancreases, spleen,  both   kidneys  are  normal”; The diagnosis in June, 2018 was perforated    gastric ulcer. 
25. All the above is not explained in evidence or in the statement .It  was upon  the plaintiff  /appellant to establish   through  evidence that  sometime in July, 2017 the defendant/respondent   assaulted    him  and  caused   him the injuries   he  was claiming  - and  that  as  a  result    of  the same – he  had  suffered    loss  and damage. 
26. What  I find  as a  fact    from the record  is that  there  was no nexus    laid  by the plaintiff  between  the  alleged   assault   on  unknown  date in July 2017  and the alleged  ailment he  went through   from 2018, 2019. 
27. Even    if  the defendant was to    admit   the alleged  assault  in 2017 – the plaintiff  would  still  have  to place  evidence before  court  to connect   the alleged   assault  with  the  injuries  set out in the plaint.   It  appears  that  the  plaintiff  had  an  underlying  condition  -  that was unrelated  to the alleged  assault -  and  for which the parents of  the respondent  -  agreed to  pay  to  avoid    the  prosecution  of  their  son  as per  the agreement. 
28. In  my  view   -  the plaintiff   did not  establish   that  any assault  occurred  against     him in July , 2017  as there  is  nothing   in the documents  placed  before   court  to support  his    statement  that  he  went to the hospital or the police  in 2017-  hence  the trial  court  was in error  in finding   that  the respondent  was liable  for  the alleged   injuries   by  the  appellant.  Just like in CHARTER HOUSE BANK LIMITED v FRANK N. KAMAU [2011] eKLR - Civil Case 263 of 2008.
This letter in my understanding does not constitute an admission of liability by any stretch of imagination. An admission is clear, plain and without any ambiguity. In the upshot I find the evidence adduced by PW1 and the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of their claim are incomplete. The plaintiff has failed to prove on a balance or probability that it lent the sum claim to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit fails with costs to the defendant(emphasis mine)
29. On quantum -  I have to agree    with   the   learned   trial  magistrate  that  the appellant  did not  establish   any  nexus    between his  allegations   and the  alleged   assault to warrant any assessment of damages. 
30. In  the  circumstances   I  find   that  the  appeal  has  no  merit . The  appeal  is  dismissed and the order of the subordinate court   is upheld. 

Dated signed and delivered vis CTC on 20/8/2024

Mumbua T. Matheka

Judge