JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 7 th August 2015, being dissatisfied with the judgment of Hon. M. A. Opanga, delivered on 16 th July 2015 in Kithimani Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Suit No. 70 of 2012.
2. The appeal is premised on five grounds, namely that;
a) The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to discount the award under the Law Reform Act from the ultimate award, thereby resulting in a double award to the Respondent
b) The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by applying the minimum wage in respect of a deceased minor who had no income, instead of adopting a global figure.
c) The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by awarding a manifestly excessive sum of Kshs 904,000/= for loss of dependency and disregarding the Appellant’s submissions on record.
d) The Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by applying a multiplicand of Kshs. 6,155/= where the income of the deceased could not be proved, the deceased having been a minor.
e) The Learned Trial Magistrate’s decision was unjust and against the weight of the evidence, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
3. The Appellant seeks orders that the appeal be allowed with costs, the judgment and decree of the subordinate court be set aside, and the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
4. The Appellant submits that the appeal arises from the judgment in which the trial court allowed the Respondent’s claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident alleged to have occurred on 25 th July 2009.
5. The Appellant states that the trial court awarded Kshs. 10,000/= for pain and suffering, Kshs. 100,000/= for loss of expectation of life, Kshs. 738,599.90/= for loss of years, and Kshs. 56,980/= as special damages, together with costs and interest.
6. On liability, the Appellant submits that the Respondent did not prove negligence to the required standard. Reliance is placed on Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and Antony Francis Wareham t/a AF Wareham & 2 Others v Kenya Post Office Savings Bank [2004] eKLR. The Appellant contends that the trial Magistrate erred in finding the Appellant liable without first determining whether the Respondent had discharged the burden of proving negligence and, in doing so, improperly shifted the burden of proof to the Appellant.
7. On loss of lost years, the Appellant submits that the deceased was aged 8 years, was a pupil and had no income. It is submitted that his future occupation and earnings could not be ascertained and that there was no evidentiary basis for assuming that he would have become a primary school teacher or earned a particular salary.
8. The Appellant therefore submits that the multiplier approach was inappropriate and that a global sum ought to have been adopted. The Appellant proposes an award of Kshs. 300,000/=, relying on Oshivji Kuvenji & Another v James Mohamed Ongenge (Suing as a Representative of the Estate of Samuel Ongenge) [2012] eKLR, where a global award of Kshs. 320,000/= was made in respect of a deceased aged 8 years, and John Njenga Njoroge v Alex Mureithi [2009] eKLR, where a global award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made where the deceased’s future employment could not be ascertained.
9. On pain and suffering, the Appellant submits that the deceased died a few hours after the accident and that an award of Kshs. 10,000/= would suffice. Reliance is placed on James Gakinya Karienye & Another (Suing as Legal Representatives of the Estate of David Kelvin Gakinya (Deceased) v Perminus Kariuki Githinji [2015] eKLR and Samuel Njoroge Kamunya v Lucy Wambui Kibe, Nairobi HCCA No. 749 of 2001.
10. On special damages, the Appellant submits that such damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, relying on Francis Muchee Nthiga v David N. Waweru [2014] eKLR, citing Coast Bus Service Ltd v Murunga Danyi & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 192 of 1992. The Appellant therefore urges the Court to award only such special damages as were specifically pleaded and proved
11. The Appellant consequently urges the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial court, reassess the quantum of damages and award the Appellant the costs of the appeal.
12. The Respondent submits that the trial Magistrate did not err in awarding Kshs. 904,000/= for loss of dependency/lost years or in applying the multiplicand and multiplier used in assessing the award.
13. The Respondent relies on Antony Muriithi Nderitu v Mary Ndinda Kiswii (Suing as Mother and Personal Representative of the Estate of Janet Kavindu Kingesi (Deceased), HCCC No. E186 of 2022, Machakos; Sunflower Academy, The Faith Homes of Kenya v Musa Lopeta Kales Peter (Suing in the Estate of the Deceased Livinah Cherop), Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2020, Kapenguria; and Eliud Sindani Majimbo Mutumbai (Suing as the Legal and Personal Representative of the Estate of Oscar Boyi Simiyu (Deceased)) v Cleophas Wanyonyi Simiyu & Another, HCCC No. 880 of 2002, Nairobi, in support of the award.
14. On the award under the Law Reform Act, the Respondent submits that the trial Magistrate was not required to mathematically deduct the award made under the Law Reform Act from the award under the Fatal Accidents Act.
15. Relying on Section 2(5) of the Law Reform Act and Section 4(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act, the Respondent submits that the rights conferred under the Law Reform Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the rights conferred under the Fatal Accidents Act. The Respondent further relies on Kemfro Africa Limited t/a “Meru Express Services (1976)” & Another v A. M. Lubia & Another, HCCA No. 21 of 1984, in support of the submission that the award under the Law Reform Act need only be taken into account when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and need not be mathematically deducted.
16. The Respondent therefore submits that the award made by the trial court was within the law and was not excessive, and urges the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs.
17. Having considered the memorandum of appeal, the record of appeal and the rival submissions, I consider the following issues to arise for determination:
18. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in assessing loss of dependency/lost years based on a minimum-wage multiplicand and multiplier method in respect of an 8 years old minor, and whether the award of Kshs. 904,000 was inordinately high, whether the trial court erred in law by failing to sufficiently take into account the award under the Law Reform Act when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, thereby occasioning double compensation, and whether the awards under pain and suffering and special damages were properly made.
19. As this is a first appeal, this Court is required to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at its own conclusion, while bearing in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses testify.
20. In an appeal against quantum, the Court does not merely substitute its own assessment because it would have awarded a different figure. The applicable principle was stated by the Court of Appeal in Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tete [2004] 2 KLR 55, viz; that an appellate court should interfere only where the trial court applied a wrong principle, took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant factor, or arrived at an award so inordinately high or low as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate.
21. The same principle was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Sheikh Mushtaq Hassan v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters & 5 Others [1986] KECA 42 (KLR), where the Court emphasised that an appellate court must be slow to interfere with an award merely because its own assessment would have produced a different figure. The award must be considered against recent awards for comparable injuries.
22. The Court of Appeal in Southern Engineering Company Ltd v Mutia [1985] KECA 49 (KLR) similarly held that assessment of damages is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised having regard to the general conditions prevailing in the country and to relevant previous decisions.
23. It follows that the question for this Court is not simply whether it would itself have awarded Kshs. 904,000. The question is whether, upon re-evaluation of the evidence and the applicable authorities, that award falls outside the permissible range and therefore constitutes an erroneous estimate.
24. I notice that the Appellant, in his submissions, raised the issue of liability, which is not expressly set out as one of his grounds of appeal in his memorandum of appeal. But ex-abudanti cautela, I have considered the same as the last ground of appeal.
25. The trial court, in finding that the Appellant 100% considered the evidence of PW2, who testified that the Appellant’s driver swerved his vehicle to the left and knocked the deceased, who fell on the left side of the road and died instantly. The trial court also considered PW2’s evidence that the area had heavy pedestrian traffic, included a bus stop, and was near a junction, facts that ought to have required the Appellant’s driver to slow down. The trial court also considered that the deceased was a minor; all these facts led to the apportionment of liability at 100% against the Appellant.
26. The Appellant did not call any witness to rebut that evidence. I agree with the finding by the trial court on the issue of liability; I see no reason to disturb that finding, particularly since no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the Appellant to counter the credible evidence adduced by the Respondent which established their case on a balance of probabilities.
27. The deceased minor was 8 years old at the time of his demise; he was a pupil, and had no income, employment or established career path.
28. The trial court adopted a multiplicand of Kshs. 6,155 being the minimum wage, a multiplier of 30 years, and proceeded to calculate Kshs. 738,599.90 under loss of years.
29. The approach by the trial court is based on speculation, for instance, on when the minor would have started earning, whether he would have been employed or unemployed, how long he would have been productive, et cetera.
30. I believe that in the circumstances of the case where there was no proven income or ascertainable future vocation, the most appropriate method would have been the global award method which is apt where the future prospects of a minor cannot reasonably be quantified.
31. In Kenya Breweries Ltd v Saro [1991] eKLR, the Court recognised that damages are payable to a parent of a deceased child irrespective of the child's age or proof of pecuniary contribution. The Court also stressed that the child's age is relevant in determining the appropriate award
32. I have in mind the well-established principle, set in the case of Butt vs Khan, that an appellate court should not substitute its own assessment merely because it would have awarded a different figure. Intervention is justified where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, or the award is so high or low as to constitute an erroneous estimate
33. In this case, I believe that the trial court erred in principle in applying the multiplier approach. A global award, informed by the deceased's age, schooling, prevailing awards and the inherent uncertainty of his future prospects, would be the more appropriate method of assessment.
34. The principles which ought to guide a court in awarding damages for lost years were set out succinctly by the Court of Appeal in Sheikh Mustaq Hassan Vs. Nathan Mwangi Kamau transporters & 5 others Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1983[1986] KLR 457; [1982-1988] 1 KAR 946; [1986-1989] EA 137
35. I have considered several decisions of the High Court where the court has held that the global award method, and not the multiplier approach, was apt in cases of deceased minors like in the present. The courts awarded a global award of KShs 800,000 in cases involving a deceased minor; these include Wandiriani and Another vs PWM ( suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the late JWW) (2023) KEHC 25911 (KLR), a case of an 8 year old: Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd vs Awina ( Suing as the Personal Representative and Administrators of the Estate of Jeremy Adrian) (2024) KEHC 6242 (KLR) a case of an 8 year old: and also in Okiro and another vs Manani and another (2025) KEHC 8717 (KLR).
36. Applying the above principles and considering the fairly recent awards by the court, I set aside the award by the trial court for Kshs. 738,599.90 and substitute it with a global sum of Kshs 800,000. Since this sum takes into account the inflation component from the year 2015, when the initial award was made, it will only attract interest from the date of the judgment in this appeal.
37. As regards the Law Reform Act, the Appellant's contention that the sum awarded thereunder ought to have been mathematically deducted from the award under the Fatal Accidents Act does not represent the correct statement of the law. In Kemfro Africa Ltd v Lubia & Another (No. 2 ) [1985] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that an award under the Law Reform Act is to be taken into account when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act; "taken into account" does not necessarily mean mathematically deducted.
38. In this case I find that the trial court did not err in awarding duplicate damages to the same beneficiaries under both the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act.
39. I also find that the Appellant did not challenge the award of special damages and damages for pain and suffering in his memorandum of appeal.
40. In any event, I find that the special damages awarded were both specifically pleaded and proved and the amount awarded for pain and suffering was within the conventional range.
41. In sum, whereas the Appellant succeeds partially on the methodology applied by the trial court and consequently the award, I believe that this is a case where each party should bear their own costs.
For those reasons, I order as follows;
A. The Judgment and Decree of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kithimani in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2012 delivered on 16 th July 2015 is upheld save for the award for loss of years of Kshs 738,600/=
B. That the award for loss of years of Kshs 738,600/= is hereby set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs 800,000/-, which shall attract interest from the date of this judgment.
C. That each party shall bear their own costs of the Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered via Microsoft Teams, at Mombasa this 17 th day of September, 2026.
In the presence of;
Hamisi C/A
Morara for the Appellant
Gichimu for the Respondent
Page 2 of 2
1. The Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 7 th August 2015, being dissatisfied with the judgment of Hon. M. A. Opanga, delivered on 16 th July 2015 in Kithimani Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Suit No. 70 of 2012.
2. The appeal is premised on five grounds, namely that;
a) The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to discount the award under the Law Reform Act from the ultimate award, thereby resulting in a double award to the Respondent
b) The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by applying the minimum wage in respect of a deceased minor who had no income, instead of adopting a global figure.
c) The learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by awarding a manifestly excessive sum of Kshs 904,000/= for loss of dependency and disregarding the Appellant’s submissions on record.
d) The Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by applying a multiplicand of Kshs. 6,155/= where the income of the deceased could not be proved, the deceased having been a minor.
e) The Learned Trial Magistrate’s decision was unjust and against the weight of the evidence, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
3. The Appellant seeks orders that the appeal be allowed with costs, the judgment and decree of the subordinate court be set aside, and the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
4. The Appellant submits that the appeal arises from the judgment in which the trial court allowed the Respondent’s claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident alleged to have occurred on 25 th July 2009.
5. The Appellant states that the trial court awarded Kshs. 10,000/= for pain and suffering, Kshs. 100,000/= for loss of expectation of life, Kshs. 738,599.90/= for loss of years, and Kshs. 56,980/= as special damages, together with costs and interest.
6. On liability, the Appellant submits that the Respondent did not prove negligence to the required standard. Reliance is placed on Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and Antony Francis Wareham t/a AF Wareham & 2 Others v Kenya Post Office Savings Bank [2004] eKLR. The Appellant contends that the trial Magistrate erred in finding the Appellant liable without first determining whether the Respondent had discharged the burden of proving negligence and, in doing so, improperly shifted the burden of proof to the Appellant.
7. On loss of lost years, the Appellant submits that the deceased was aged 8 years, was a pupil and had no income. It is submitted that his future occupation and earnings could not be ascertained and that there was no evidentiary basis for assuming that he would have become a primary school teacher or earned a particular salary.
8. The Appellant therefore submits that the multiplier approach was inappropriate and that a global sum ought to have been adopted. The Appellant proposes an award of Kshs. 300,000/=, relying on Oshivji Kuvenji & Another v James Mohamed Ongenge (Suing as a Representative of the Estate of Samuel Ongenge) [2012] eKLR, where a global award of Kshs. 320,000/= was made in respect of a deceased aged 8 years, and John Njenga Njoroge v Alex Mureithi [2009] eKLR, where a global award of Kshs. 300,000/= was made where the deceased’s future employment could not be ascertained.
9. On pain and suffering, the Appellant submits that the deceased died a few hours after the accident and that an award of Kshs. 10,000/= would suffice. Reliance is placed on James Gakinya Karienye & Another (Suing as Legal Representatives of the Estate of David Kelvin Gakinya (Deceased) v Perminus Kariuki Githinji [2015] eKLR and Samuel Njoroge Kamunya v Lucy Wambui Kibe, Nairobi HCCA No. 749 of 2001.
10. On special damages, the Appellant submits that such damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, relying on Francis Muchee Nthiga v David N. Waweru [2014] eKLR, citing Coast Bus Service Ltd v Murunga Danyi & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 192 of 1992. The Appellant therefore urges the Court to award only such special damages as were specifically pleaded and proved
11. The Appellant consequently urges the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial court, reassess the quantum of damages and award the Appellant the costs of the appeal.
12. The Respondent submits that the trial Magistrate did not err in awarding Kshs. 904,000/= for loss of dependency/lost years or in applying the multiplicand and multiplier used in assessing the award.
13. The Respondent relies on Antony Muriithi Nderitu v Mary Ndinda Kiswii (Suing as Mother and Personal Representative of the Estate of Janet Kavindu Kingesi (Deceased), HCCC No. E186 of 2022, Machakos; Sunflower Academy, The Faith Homes of Kenya v Musa Lopeta Kales Peter (Suing in the Estate of the Deceased Livinah Cherop), Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2020, Kapenguria; and Eliud Sindani Majimbo Mutumbai (Suing as the Legal and Personal Representative of the Estate of Oscar Boyi Simiyu (Deceased)) v Cleophas Wanyonyi Simiyu & Another, HCCC No. 880 of 2002, Nairobi, in support of the award.
14. On the award under the Law Reform Act, the Respondent submits that the trial Magistrate was not required to mathematically deduct the award made under the Law Reform Act from the award under the Fatal Accidents Act.
15. Relying on Section 2(5) of the Law Reform Act and Section 4(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act, the Respondent submits that the rights conferred under the Law Reform Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the rights conferred under the Fatal Accidents Act. The Respondent further relies on Kemfro Africa Limited t/a “Meru Express Services (1976)” & Another v A. M. Lubia & Another, HCCA No. 21 of 1984, in support of the submission that the award under the Law Reform Act need only be taken into account when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and need not be mathematically deducted.
16. The Respondent therefore submits that the award made by the trial court was within the law and was not excessive, and urges the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs.
17. Having considered the memorandum of appeal, the record of appeal and the rival submissions, I consider the following issues to arise for determination:
18. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in assessing loss of dependency/lost years based on a minimum-wage multiplicand and multiplier method in respect of an 8 years old minor, and whether the award of Kshs. 904,000 was inordinately high, whether the trial court erred in law by failing to sufficiently take into account the award under the Law Reform Act when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, thereby occasioning double compensation, and whether the awards under pain and suffering and special damages were properly made.
19. As this is a first appeal, this Court is required to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence on record and arrive at its own conclusion, while bearing in mind that it did not see or hear the witnesses testify.
20. In an appeal against quantum, the Court does not merely substitute its own assessment because it would have awarded a different figure. The applicable principle was stated by the Court of Appeal in Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Sophia Achieng Tete [2004] 2 KLR 55, viz; that an appellate court should interfere only where the trial court applied a wrong principle, took into account an irrelevant factor, failed to take into account a relevant factor, or arrived at an award so inordinately high or low as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate.
21. The same principle was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Sheikh Mushtaq Hassan v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters & 5 Others [1986] KECA 42 (KLR), where the Court emphasised that an appellate court must be slow to interfere with an award merely because its own assessment would have produced a different figure. The award must be considered against recent awards for comparable injuries.
22. The Court of Appeal in Southern Engineering Company Ltd v Mutia [1985] KECA 49 (KLR) similarly held that assessment of damages is a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised having regard to the general conditions prevailing in the country and to relevant previous decisions.
23. It follows that the question for this Court is not simply whether it would itself have awarded Kshs. 904,000. The question is whether, upon re-evaluation of the evidence and the applicable authorities, that award falls outside the permissible range and therefore constitutes an erroneous estimate.
24. I notice that the Appellant, in his submissions, raised the issue of liability, which is not expressly set out as one of his grounds of appeal in his memorandum of appeal. But ex-abudanti cautela, I have considered the same as the last ground of appeal.
25. The trial court, in finding that the Appellant 100% considered the evidence of PW2, who testified that the Appellant’s driver swerved his vehicle to the left and knocked the deceased, who fell on the left side of the road and died instantly. The trial court also considered PW2’s evidence that the area had heavy pedestrian traffic, included a bus stop, and was near a junction, facts that ought to have required the Appellant’s driver to slow down. The trial court also considered that the deceased was a minor; all these facts led to the apportionment of liability at 100% against the Appellant.
26. The Appellant did not call any witness to rebut that evidence. I agree with the finding by the trial court on the issue of liability; I see no reason to disturb that finding, particularly since no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the Appellant to counter the credible evidence adduced by the Respondent which established their case on a balance of probabilities.
27. The deceased minor was 8 years old at the time of his demise; he was a pupil, and had no income, employment or established career path.
28. The trial court adopted a multiplicand of Kshs. 6,155 being the minimum wage, a multiplier of 30 years, and proceeded to calculate Kshs. 738,599.90 under loss of years.
29. The approach by the trial court is based on speculation, for instance, on when the minor would have started earning, whether he would have been employed or unemployed, how long he would have been productive, et cetera.
30. I believe that in the circumstances of the case where there was no proven income or ascertainable future vocation, the most appropriate method would have been the global award method which is apt where the future prospects of a minor cannot reasonably be quantified.
31. In Kenya Breweries Ltd v Saro [1991] eKLR, the Court recognised that damages are payable to a parent of a deceased child irrespective of the child's age or proof of pecuniary contribution. The Court also stressed that the child's age is relevant in determining the appropriate award
32. I have in mind the well-established principle, set in the case of Butt vs Khan, that an appellate court should not substitute its own assessment merely because it would have awarded a different figure. Intervention is justified where the trial court acted on a wrong principle, or the award is so high or low as to constitute an erroneous estimate
33. In this case, I believe that the trial court erred in principle in applying the multiplier approach. A global award, informed by the deceased's age, schooling, prevailing awards and the inherent uncertainty of his future prospects, would be the more appropriate method of assessment.
34. The principles which ought to guide a court in awarding damages for lost years were set out succinctly by the Court of Appeal in Sheikh Mustaq Hassan Vs. Nathan Mwangi Kamau transporters & 5 others Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1983[1986] KLR 457; [1982-1988] 1 KAR 946; [1986-1989] EA 137
35. I have considered several decisions of the High Court where the court has held that the global award method, and not the multiplier approach, was apt in cases of deceased minors like in the present. The courts awarded a global award of KShs 800,000 in cases involving a deceased minor; these include Wandiriani and Another vs PWM ( suing as the legal representative of the Estate of the late JWW) (2023) KEHC 25911 (KLR), a case of an 8 year old: Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd vs Awina ( Suing as the Personal Representative and Administrators of the Estate of Jeremy Adrian) (2024) KEHC 6242 (KLR) a case of an 8 year old: and also in Okiro and another vs Manani and another (2025) KEHC 8717 (KLR).
36. Applying the above principles and considering the fairly recent awards by the court, I set aside the award by the trial court for Kshs. 738,599.90 and substitute it with a global sum of Kshs 800,000. Since this sum takes into account the inflation component from the year 2015, when the initial award was made, it will only attract interest from the date of the judgment in this appeal.
37. As regards the Law Reform Act, the Appellant's contention that the sum awarded thereunder ought to have been mathematically deducted from the award under the Fatal Accidents Act does not represent the correct statement of the law. In Kemfro Africa Ltd v Lubia & Another (No. 2 ) [1985] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that an award under the Law Reform Act is to be taken into account when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act; "taken into account" does not necessarily mean mathematically deducted.
38. In this case I find that the trial court did not err in awarding duplicate damages to the same beneficiaries under both the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act.
39. I also find that the Appellant did not challenge the award of special damages and damages for pain and suffering in his memorandum of appeal.
40. In any event, I find that the special damages awarded were both specifically pleaded and proved and the amount awarded for pain and suffering was within the conventional range.
41. In sum, whereas the Appellant succeeds partially on the methodology applied by the trial court and consequently the award, I believe that this is a case where each party should bear their own costs.
For those reasons, I order as follows;
A. The Judgment and Decree of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kithimani in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2012 delivered on 16 th July 2015 is upheld save for the award for loss of years of Kshs 738,600/=
B. That the award for loss of years of Kshs 738,600/= is hereby set aside and substituted with an award of Kshs 800,000/-, which shall attract interest from the date of this judgment.
C. That each party shall bear their own costs of the Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered via Microsoft Teams, at Mombasa this 17 th day of September, 2026.
In the presence of;
Hamisi C/A
Morara for the Appellant
Gichimu for the Respondent
Page 2 of 2