REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
HCCA E091 OF 2024
WINNIE CHEPKIRUI ……………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
EMMANUEL NZIOKI ………………………….…….. 1 ST RESPONDENT
ANTHONY MWANGI NGUNDO ……………….…… 2 ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal , the judgment of the trial court in Makueni MCCC E155 of 2022 was delivered on 16 th July 2024. The plaintiff/appellant who had sued the defendants/respondents’ general damages for pain and suffering, special damages, for injuries sustained , following an RTA on 13 th April 2022, between the motorcycle where she was pillion passenger and m/vehicle registration no. KCC 533M.
2. The trial court entered Judgment of Ksh 700,000 general damages for pain and suffering .
3. The appellant was aggrieved and filed this appeal on the following grounds;
1) The Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in awarding the Appellant general damages to the tune of Kshs. 700,000 which amount was too low to warrant the interference by this court.
2) The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by awarding an amount in general damages which is not commensurate to the injuries sustained by the Appellant.
3) The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the Appellant's submissions and judicial authorities on quantum thereby making an erroneous figure on general damages.
4) The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider conventional awards for general damages in cases of similar injuries.
4. The appellant submitted that this court as 1 st appellate court is required to revisit, re-evaluate and consider afresh the evidence presented before the trial court so as to make its own independent conclusions bearing in mind that unlike the trial court, it did not have the benefit of seeing or hearing the witnesses and give due allowance for that disadvantage. This was held in Selle & another vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited, [19681 EA 123; Peters vs Sunday Post Limited, [1958] FA 424.
5. It was submitted further that the court can only disturb the award of damages by the trial court in specific circumstances and with caution and only in circumstances where it is clear that the trial court's decision or finding of fact was not based on any evidence or was based on a misrepresentation of the evidence or on wrong legal principles. See: Sumaria & another V Allied Industrial Limited, [2007] 2 KLR 1; Makube V Nyamoro, [1983] KLR 403.
6. The appellant referred the court to Kemfro Africa Limited & Another V Lubia & Another (1985)eKLR where the court set down the principles guiding the appellate court's power to interfere with the trial court's finding on quantum. It was held (as it well settled).
"... The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial Judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied that either that the Judge in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account relevant one, or that, short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage. See Ilanga v Manyoka [1961] EA 705, 709, 713 (CA-T); Lukenya Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Lt u Kavoloto, (1979] EA 414, 418, 419 (CA-K). This Court follows the same principles... "
7. The appellant also submitted that that the she pleaded in the plaint dated 12/7/2023 the following injuries :-
a. Loss of consciousness
b. Multiple facial abrasions-Bilateral
c. Head injuries that consisted of
d. Loss of consciousness
e. Facial laceration
f. d) Fracture of the right radius
g. e) Double fractures of the right femur (communited fracture)
h. f) Right fibula fracture
i. g) Blunt soft tissue injures to the left elbow
j. h) Right upper limb soft tissue injuries
k. i) Right lower limb pain
8. That the plaintiff testified and produced medical discharge summaries from Makueni County Referral Hospital ,Nairobi West Hospital and a report by Dr. Wokabi indicated that she had sustained a 14% disability.
9. The appellant submitted that the trial court did not consider the appellant’s submissions, which were reiterated in her submissions, restating the authorities cited before that court where submissions were made for the sum of up to Ksh 2,000,000- The court was urged to reconsider these authorities and review the award upwards.
10. The Respondents cited Tahmeed Coach & Another Vs Nthenge & Another (Suing as the legal administrators of the estate of Gregory Mwanza Nthenge) [2025]KEHC 9783 KLR where the court in determining Whether the quantum of damages should be disturbed stated;
27.Awarding damages is largely an exercise of judicial discretion and the instances that would make an appellate Court interfere with that discretion are well established. In Butt –vs Khan (1977)1KAR it was held that;
“An appellate Court will not disturb an award for damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the judge proceeded on wrong principles, or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low.
28.Further, an appellate court will not disturb an award simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case in the first instance.
11. I have carefully considered the record, submissions and the grounds of appeal.
12. The Defendant /Respondent submits that according to the medical records that were produced, the plaintiff/appellant sustained the following injuries
▪ Head injury, being loss of consciousness & facial laceration
▪ Fracture of the right radius
▪ Double fractures of the right femur
▪ Fracture of the right fibula
▪ Blunt soft tissue injuries to the left elbow
13. It is submitted that Dr. W.M. Wokabi in his Medical Report of 09/05/2023 confirmed that :-The head and open injuries were treated and hade well; that the K-wire earlier fixed on the right radius had been removed following complete bone union with no abnormalities. That the double fractures of the right femur had been fixed with a K-nail but the bones had since completely united; that fractured right fibula received/required no formal treatment (was self-healing) and had since united fully. That he assigned "slight disability" right leg @ 8% and right forearm @6%.
14. This court was urged to be persuaded as follows; that
i. A judicial award of damages for injury is meant to fairly compensate a victim and not to unjustly enrich a Plaintiff or to punish/oppress a Defendant,
ii. Previous awards for comparable injuries are mere guides but each case should as far as possible be treated on its own facts
iii. Awards should be commensurate with the injuries sustained; and,
iv. Compensatory awards ought to be within affordable economic limits, regard being had to the incidence of inflation .
15. It was further submitted that the defendant/respondent had submitted for an award of Kshs. 600,000 in general damages relying on
- JITAN NAGRA V ABIDNEGO NYANDUSI OIGO [2018] eKLR
Where Ksh . 450,000/- was awarded on 12/10/2018 for segmental distal fracture of the right femur, compound fracture of the right tibia/fibula bones, lacerations on the occipital area, deep cut wound on the back, right knee and lateral lane, bruises at the back extending to the right side of the lumbar region, blunt trauma to the chest, bruises on the left elbow, and anticipated permanent disability.
DAVID MUTEMBEI V MAURICE OCHIENG ODOYO [2019] eKLR where the sum of Kshs. 800,000/- awarded on 11/12/2019 for a fracture of the right femur, proximal fracture of the left tibia, cut wound, 2 months hospitalization, serious body deformity requiring future surgery, one leg shortened, difficulty in walking for long.
JOSEPH MWANGI THUITA V JOYCE MWOLE [2018] KLR where
the sum of Kshs.700,000/= was awarded on 23/11/2018 for fractures to the right femur, compound fracture (r) tibia, compound fracture right fibula, shortened right leg, episodic pain (r) thigh with inability to walk without support .
16. The respondent argued that the court actually did consider the submissions by the plaintiff/appellant in the judgement.– and painstakingly reproduced the same. The appellant however argued that the trial court did not rely on any of the authorities cited by the parties but relied on other authorities to arrive at the finding on quantum. It was submitted that the appellant could not be heard to bring new authorities on appeal
17. I have looked at the judgment of the trial court stated: Here is what it said;
The plaintiff has submitted that an award of Kshs. 2,000,000 is commensurate for the injuries sustained. She relies on Francis Ndungu Wambul & 2 Others v VK (a minor suing through next friend and mother MCWK) [2019] eKLR, wherein the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision of awarding of Kshs. 1,000,000/= in general damages to the respondent who had suffered soft tissue injuries to the upper limbs, and compound fractures of distal tibia fibula.
They also rely on Van Den Berg (K) Ltd V Charles Osewe Osodo [2022] EKLR where the Court upheld an award of Kshs. 1,000,000/- in general damages for a Plaintiff who had suffered the following injuries, Fracture of left radices, Fracture of femur and Soft tissue injuries of pelvis. Together with Wanjohi V Njamumo & Another (Civil Appeal E022 OF 2022) [2023] K ЕНС where the Court upheld the trial court's decisions of awarding Kshs. 1,500,000/= in general damages to a Plaintiff that had suffered multiple wounds on the right cheek, outer aspect of the right eye, lower back, lateral aspect of the right arm, right knee joint and a closed comminuted (with many fragments) fracture of femur.
18. The trial court however went on to rely on Koyi Obanga & 2 others [2022[& EKLR where an award of Kshs. 400,000 was made for displaced fracture of left tibia, fracture of left femur among other soft tissue injuries and permanent incapacity of 40% Stanley Kiriwa Arusei Vs John Mwalatu [2020] eKLR where an award of Kshs. 1,800,000 was reduced to 500,000 for fracture of left femur proximal, open segmental fracture of right tibia fibula.
19. Taking into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and the submissions by counsel , the issues are whether the award was too low to represent an entirely erroneous estimate of what was awarded to the appellant ? Did the trial magistrate proceed on wrong principle? Did the trial magistrate misapprehend the evidence in some material respect?
20. I have pointed out that the trial court proceeded to rely on authorities not cited by either party. The trial court did not give reason for not taking guidance from the authorities cited by the parties. It is noteworthy that despite the defendant/respondent citing authorities to support an award of Kshs. 600,000 the trial court relied on authorities that supported lower assessment of between Kshs. 450,000 to 500,000 yet the defendant respondent had submitted for Kshs. 600,000.
21. In addition, it is the respondent who had cited older cases- 2018, 2019 cases for a matter where the Road Traffic Accident happened in 2022.
22. Even considering these older cases, what is trite is the trial court ought to take into account of the lapse of time in making the award.
23. In any event the court had more recent cases cited by the plaintiff/appellant as set out in its judgment. The trial court ought to have applied its mind to an analysis of these authorities and whether or not they were relevant to the plaintiff/appellant injuries before looking for others.
24. This point is emphasized by the defendant/respondent that even here on appeal – a party cannot introduce authorities they did not rely on in the subordinate court .
25. Looking at the authorities cited by the parties in the subordinate court vis a vis the injuries pleaded and confirmed by the medical evidence – the plaintiff/appellant sustained serious injuries. She lost consciousness, had fractures on three different bones and other serious soft tissue injuries.
26. While the authorities cited by the defendant/respondent were relevant – they were older than the relevant period of time - and looking at what was cited by the plaintiff/appellant- they were current.
27. It is my considered view that the award was low to call for interference by this court .
28. In arriving at that view, I applied the principles cited by the defendant/respondent – that
“previous awards for comparable injuries are mere guides but each case should as far as possible be treated on its own facts; and awards should be commensurate with injuries sustained; and compensatory awards ought to be within affordable economic limits, regard being had to incidents of inflation –
29. In addition, I also took into account the authorities cited by the parties in the subordinate court. In these cases, general damages are awarded for pain and suffering. This is defined as;
“Physical discomfort or emotional distress compensable as an element of non-economic damages in torts”. (Black Law Dictionary 10 th Ed. 1284 .
30. It is submitted by defendant/respondent that the plaintiff/applicant was given “clean bill of health” by Dr. Wokabi. It is however important to note that though the healing part counts (the impact of the injury) in the assessment of damages, the pain and suffering caused by the injury before it heals and post healing of the injury ought to count in the assessment of damages.
31. In the totality of the fore going circumstance, I find that the trial court did not consider the authorities cited by the parties, as a result missed out on the difference in injuries, and lapse of time. Had the court done so, I am persuaded the trial court would have arrived at a different award, hence – the appeal is merited.
32. It is allowed. The award of Kshs. 700,000 as general Damages for pain and suffering be and is hereby is set aside and substituted with the award of Kshs. 1,000,000.
33. The appellant will have interest on the difference (Ksh 300,000) from the date of this judgment.
34. Considering the circumstances of this case – the plaintiff/appellant will have ½ the costs of the appeal.
Orders Accordingly
Dated, signed and delivered virtually on 13 th February 2026
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
CA Mwiwa/Daniel
Counsel for the Appellant Ms Muranga
Counsel for the Respondent. Mr Maweu
Judgment HCCA E091 of 202 4 Page 2 of 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MAKUENI
HCCA E091 OF 2024
WINNIE CHEPKIRUI ……………………………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
EMMANUEL NZIOKI ………………………….…….. 1 ST RESPONDENT
ANTHONY MWANGI NGUNDO ……………….…… 2 ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal , the judgment of the trial court in Makueni MCCC E155 of 2022 was delivered on 16 th July 2024. The plaintiff/appellant who had sued the defendants/respondents’ general damages for pain and suffering, special damages, for injuries sustained , following an RTA on 13 th April 2022, between the motorcycle where she was pillion passenger and m/vehicle registration no. KCC 533M.
2. The trial court entered Judgment of Ksh 700,000 general damages for pain and suffering .
3. The appellant was aggrieved and filed this appeal on the following grounds;
1) The Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in awarding the Appellant general damages to the tune of Kshs. 700,000 which amount was too low to warrant the interference by this court.
2) The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by awarding an amount in general damages which is not commensurate to the injuries sustained by the Appellant.
3) The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the Appellant's submissions and judicial authorities on quantum thereby making an erroneous figure on general damages.
4) The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider conventional awards for general damages in cases of similar injuries.
4. The appellant submitted that this court as 1 st appellate court is required to revisit, re-evaluate and consider afresh the evidence presented before the trial court so as to make its own independent conclusions bearing in mind that unlike the trial court, it did not have the benefit of seeing or hearing the witnesses and give due allowance for that disadvantage. This was held in Selle & another vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited, [19681 EA 123; Peters vs Sunday Post Limited, [1958] FA 424.
5. It was submitted further that the court can only disturb the award of damages by the trial court in specific circumstances and with caution and only in circumstances where it is clear that the trial court's decision or finding of fact was not based on any evidence or was based on a misrepresentation of the evidence or on wrong legal principles. See: Sumaria & another V Allied Industrial Limited, [2007] 2 KLR 1; Makube V Nyamoro, [1983] KLR 403.
6. The appellant referred the court to Kemfro Africa Limited & Another V Lubia & Another (1985)eKLR where the court set down the principles guiding the appellate court's power to interfere with the trial court's finding on quantum. It was held (as it well settled).
"... The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial Judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied that either that the Judge in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account relevant one, or that, short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage. See Ilanga v Manyoka [1961] EA 705, 709, 713 (CA-T); Lukenya Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society Lt u Kavoloto, (1979] EA 414, 418, 419 (CA-K). This Court follows the same principles... "
7. The appellant also submitted that that the she pleaded in the plaint dated 12/7/2023 the following injuries :-
a. Loss of consciousness
b. Multiple facial abrasions-Bilateral
c. Head injuries that consisted of
d. Loss of consciousness
e. Facial laceration
f. d) Fracture of the right radius
g. e) Double fractures of the right femur (communited fracture)
h. f) Right fibula fracture
i. g) Blunt soft tissue injures to the left elbow
j. h) Right upper limb soft tissue injuries
k. i) Right lower limb pain
8. That the plaintiff testified and produced medical discharge summaries from Makueni County Referral Hospital ,Nairobi West Hospital and a report by Dr. Wokabi indicated that she had sustained a 14% disability.
9. The appellant submitted that the trial court did not consider the appellant’s submissions, which were reiterated in her submissions, restating the authorities cited before that court where submissions were made for the sum of up to Ksh 2,000,000- The court was urged to reconsider these authorities and review the award upwards.
10. The Respondents cited Tahmeed Coach & Another Vs Nthenge & Another (Suing as the legal administrators of the estate of Gregory Mwanza Nthenge) [2025]KEHC 9783 KLR where the court in determining Whether the quantum of damages should be disturbed stated;
27.Awarding damages is largely an exercise of judicial discretion and the instances that would make an appellate Court interfere with that discretion are well established. In Butt –vs Khan (1977)1KAR it was held that;
“An appellate Court will not disturb an award for damages unless it is inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the judge proceeded on wrong principles, or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low.
28.Further, an appellate court will not disturb an award simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case in the first instance.
11. I have carefully considered the record, submissions and the grounds of appeal.
12. The Defendant /Respondent submits that according to the medical records that were produced, the plaintiff/appellant sustained the following injuries
▪ Head injury, being loss of consciousness & facial laceration
▪ Fracture of the right radius
▪ Double fractures of the right femur
▪ Fracture of the right fibula
▪ Blunt soft tissue injuries to the left elbow
13. It is submitted that Dr. W.M. Wokabi in his Medical Report of 09/05/2023 confirmed that :-The head and open injuries were treated and hade well; that the K-wire earlier fixed on the right radius had been removed following complete bone union with no abnormalities. That the double fractures of the right femur had been fixed with a K-nail but the bones had since completely united; that fractured right fibula received/required no formal treatment (was self-healing) and had since united fully. That he assigned "slight disability" right leg @ 8% and right forearm @6%.
14. This court was urged to be persuaded as follows; that
i. A judicial award of damages for injury is meant to fairly compensate a victim and not to unjustly enrich a Plaintiff or to punish/oppress a Defendant,
ii. Previous awards for comparable injuries are mere guides but each case should as far as possible be treated on its own facts
iii. Awards should be commensurate with the injuries sustained; and,
iv. Compensatory awards ought to be within affordable economic limits, regard being had to the incidence of inflation .
15. It was further submitted that the defendant/respondent had submitted for an award of Kshs. 600,000 in general damages relying on
- JITAN NAGRA V ABIDNEGO NYANDUSI OIGO [2018] eKLR
Where Ksh . 450,000/- was awarded on 12/10/2018 for segmental distal fracture of the right femur, compound fracture of the right tibia/fibula bones, lacerations on the occipital area, deep cut wound on the back, right knee and lateral lane, bruises at the back extending to the right side of the lumbar region, blunt trauma to the chest, bruises on the left elbow, and anticipated permanent disability.
DAVID MUTEMBEI V MAURICE OCHIENG ODOYO [2019] eKLR where the sum of Kshs. 800,000/- awarded on 11/12/2019 for a fracture of the right femur, proximal fracture of the left tibia, cut wound, 2 months hospitalization, serious body deformity requiring future surgery, one leg shortened, difficulty in walking for long.
JOSEPH MWANGI THUITA V JOYCE MWOLE [2018] KLR where
the sum of Kshs.700,000/= was awarded on 23/11/2018 for fractures to the right femur, compound fracture (r) tibia, compound fracture right fibula, shortened right leg, episodic pain (r) thigh with inability to walk without support .
16. The respondent argued that the court actually did consider the submissions by the plaintiff/appellant in the judgement.– and painstakingly reproduced the same. The appellant however argued that the trial court did not rely on any of the authorities cited by the parties but relied on other authorities to arrive at the finding on quantum. It was submitted that the appellant could not be heard to bring new authorities on appeal
17. I have looked at the judgment of the trial court stated: Here is what it said;
The plaintiff has submitted that an award of Kshs. 2,000,000 is commensurate for the injuries sustained. She relies on Francis Ndungu Wambul & 2 Others v VK (a minor suing through next friend and mother MCWK) [2019] eKLR, wherein the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision of awarding of Kshs. 1,000,000/= in general damages to the respondent who had suffered soft tissue injuries to the upper limbs, and compound fractures of distal tibia fibula.
They also rely on Van Den Berg (K) Ltd V Charles Osewe Osodo [2022] EKLR where the Court upheld an award of Kshs. 1,000,000/- in general damages for a Plaintiff who had suffered the following injuries, Fracture of left radices, Fracture of femur and Soft tissue injuries of pelvis. Together with Wanjohi V Njamumo & Another (Civil Appeal E022 OF 2022) [2023] K ЕНС where the Court upheld the trial court's decisions of awarding Kshs. 1,500,000/= in general damages to a Plaintiff that had suffered multiple wounds on the right cheek, outer aspect of the right eye, lower back, lateral aspect of the right arm, right knee joint and a closed comminuted (with many fragments) fracture of femur.
18. The trial court however went on to rely on Koyi Obanga & 2 others [2022[& EKLR where an award of Kshs. 400,000 was made for displaced fracture of left tibia, fracture of left femur among other soft tissue injuries and permanent incapacity of 40% Stanley Kiriwa Arusei Vs John Mwalatu [2020] eKLR where an award of Kshs. 1,800,000 was reduced to 500,000 for fracture of left femur proximal, open segmental fracture of right tibia fibula.
19. Taking into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, and the submissions by counsel , the issues are whether the award was too low to represent an entirely erroneous estimate of what was awarded to the appellant ? Did the trial magistrate proceed on wrong principle? Did the trial magistrate misapprehend the evidence in some material respect?
20. I have pointed out that the trial court proceeded to rely on authorities not cited by either party. The trial court did not give reason for not taking guidance from the authorities cited by the parties. It is noteworthy that despite the defendant/respondent citing authorities to support an award of Kshs. 600,000 the trial court relied on authorities that supported lower assessment of between Kshs. 450,000 to 500,000 yet the defendant respondent had submitted for Kshs. 600,000.
21. In addition, it is the respondent who had cited older cases- 2018, 2019 cases for a matter where the Road Traffic Accident happened in 2022.
22. Even considering these older cases, what is trite is the trial court ought to take into account of the lapse of time in making the award.
23. In any event the court had more recent cases cited by the plaintiff/appellant as set out in its judgment. The trial court ought to have applied its mind to an analysis of these authorities and whether or not they were relevant to the plaintiff/appellant injuries before looking for others.
24. This point is emphasized by the defendant/respondent that even here on appeal – a party cannot introduce authorities they did not rely on in the subordinate court .
25. Looking at the authorities cited by the parties in the subordinate court vis a vis the injuries pleaded and confirmed by the medical evidence – the plaintiff/appellant sustained serious injuries. She lost consciousness, had fractures on three different bones and other serious soft tissue injuries.
26. While the authorities cited by the defendant/respondent were relevant – they were older than the relevant period of time - and looking at what was cited by the plaintiff/appellant- they were current.
27. It is my considered view that the award was low to call for interference by this court .
28. In arriving at that view, I applied the principles cited by the defendant/respondent – that
“previous awards for comparable injuries are mere guides but each case should as far as possible be treated on its own facts; and awards should be commensurate with injuries sustained; and compensatory awards ought to be within affordable economic limits, regard being had to incidents of inflation –
29. In addition, I also took into account the authorities cited by the parties in the subordinate court. In these cases, general damages are awarded for pain and suffering. This is defined as;
“Physical discomfort or emotional distress compensable as an element of non-economic damages in torts”. (Black Law Dictionary 10 th Ed. 1284 .
30. It is submitted by defendant/respondent that the plaintiff/applicant was given “clean bill of health” by Dr. Wokabi. It is however important to note that though the healing part counts (the impact of the injury) in the assessment of damages, the pain and suffering caused by the injury before it heals and post healing of the injury ought to count in the assessment of damages.
31. In the totality of the fore going circumstance, I find that the trial court did not consider the authorities cited by the parties, as a result missed out on the difference in injuries, and lapse of time. Had the court done so, I am persuaded the trial court would have arrived at a different award, hence – the appeal is merited.
32. It is allowed. The award of Kshs. 700,000 as general Damages for pain and suffering be and is hereby is set aside and substituted with the award of Kshs. 1,000,000.
33. The appellant will have interest on the difference (Ksh 300,000) from the date of this judgment.
34. Considering the circumstances of this case – the plaintiff/appellant will have ½ the costs of the appeal.
Orders Accordingly
Dated, signed and delivered virtually on 13 th February 2026
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
CA Mwiwa/Daniel
Counsel for the Appellant Ms Muranga
Counsel for the Respondent. Mr Maweu
Judgment HCCA E091 of 202 4 Page 2 of 2