Martha Nyokabi Gachini v Anestar Secondary School [2020] KEHC 5172 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2018

MARTHA NYOKABI GACHINI.................................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

ANESTAR SECONDARY SCHOOL.........................................................RESPONDENT

(Being an Appeal   against  the  Judgment   of  the Hon. D. Nyaboke  Sure  (RM_

delivered  on  29th  January, 2018  in  PMCC  No. 46 of  2017  - Wanguru)

BETWEEN

MARTHA NYOKABI GACHINI.....................................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ANESTAR SECONDARY SCHOOL.........................................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises from the Judgment delivered in PMCC’s at Wanguru Civil Case  No. 46 of  2017.   In the case the appellant had filed a plaint on   11th day of April, 2017 seeking general and special damages, costs and interest  against  the  defendant   on  account   of  injuries  he  sustained  as  a result  of  a  road  traffic  accident  which  occurred on  17th  June, 2016 along  Embu  Mwea  Road while  travelling  as  a  passenger  in  motor-vehicle  registration  number  KBP  403 A  which  is  owned by the  defendant/respondent.

2. The appellant in the plaint   had claimed that the accident occurred   owing to the negligence of the  defendant  as  the  particulars  of  negligence  pleaded  in  the  plaint.   As a result of the accident   the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries.

Which include;

(a) Trauma to the left  iliac  fossa  of  the  pelvis.

(b) Threatened  abortion  as  evidenced   by  PV  Bleeding.

3. The claim was opposed by the  respondent  who though admitting the occurrence of the accident denied any negligence on his part.

4. In the Judgment of  the   trial  magistrate  delivered  on  29th  January, 2018  the  defendant  was  adjudged   to be  100%  liable   for  the  accident.   She proceeded to award the appellant Kshs; 30,000/= in general damages for injuries that the plaintiff/appellant had sustained.

5. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial magistrate, the   appellant lodged  this  appeal   in Memorandum  of  Appeal  dated  3rd  February, 2018  and  raised   the  following  grounds;

(i) That the  learned  magistrate   erred  in law  and  in fact  by  failing  to  consider  the evidence  tendered  by  the  plaintiff

(ii) That  the  learned  magistrate  erred  in  law  and  in fact  in  awarding  general  damages  of  Kshs; 30,000/=  an  amount  that  was  inordinately   very low   in the  circumstances.

(iii) That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in  failing  to consider   the  nature  and  serious  of  the  injuries  suffered  by  the  Plaintiff.

(iv) That the learned magistrate erred in law and   in fact in failing  to consider  the  Plaintiff’s  submissions.

6. The appellants prayed that the Judgment of the lower court be set aside and be substituted with an award on quantum as proposed in the  appellant’s  submission  dated  8th  January, 2018.  She proposes that the appeal be allowed and that the court re-assesses the general damages awarded.

7. The appeal was opposed by the respondents who filed written submissions dated 15th February, 2019.   I have considered the appeal and the submissions filed by the parties.

8. The issue which arises for determination is;

(i) Assessment of damages.

It is submitted that   the learned magistrate assessment of general damages were inordinately low and the same ought to be interfered with by this court in the interest of justice.

It is submitted that it is trite law that the trial court was under a duty   to assess the general damages payable to the appellant even after dismissing the suit.

He has relied on the case of; MordekaiMwangi Nandwa -versus -   Bhogals  Garage Limited  CA   No. 124  of  1993   Reported  in   1993  ( KLR   4448)   where  the  court  held  that  damages  be  assessed   even  if  the  case  is  dismissed  does  not  imply   writing  an  alternative  judgment.

That the learned trial  magistrate  did  assess  the  general  damages  payable  to  the    plaintiff  however,   it  is  our  considered  view   that  the  stated  award  in  Kshs; 30,000/=  is  inordinately  low  in  the  circumstances.

He has relied  on the case of;   Butt  -vs- Khan  Civil  Appeal No. 40  of  1997,  Law,   J.A  pronounced   himself   that:

“Anappellate  court   will not  disturb  an  award  of  damages  unless   it  is  so  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  misrepresented   the  evidence  in some  material  respect,  and   so  arrives  at  figure   which     was  either   inordinately  high  or  low.

Further,  in   the  case   Kemfro  Africa  Limited  and  Another  -versus-  A.M. Lubia  &  Another   ( 1982  -1988) KLA  the  Court  of  Appeal   rendered    itself  that;

“in deciding   whether  it  is  justified   in disturbing   the  quantum  of  damages   awarded  by  a  trial  court,  an  appellate  court  must  be  satisfied  that  the   judge  in  assessing  the  damages  took  into  account  an  irrelevant  factor  or  left  out  of  account  a  relevant  one,  or  that,  short  of  that,  the amount  is  so  inordinately  low  or  so  inordinately  high  that  it  must  be  wholly  erroneous   estimate   of  the  damages.”

9. He submits  that   the  trial  magistrate   did  not  consider  the  injuries   that  the  appellant  sustained  and  an  award  of  Kshs; 30,000/=  bearing  in  mind  the  seriousness  of  the  injuries  and  the   rate  of  inflation in  the  country, and  she  prays  that  she  be awarded   Kshs; 200,000/=  in  general  damages.

He relies  on  the  case  of;  Catherine  Wanjiru  Kingori  and  3  others  -versus-  Gibson  Theuri  Gichuhi (2005) eklr  where  the  plaintiff  were  awarded  between  Kshs; 100,000  up to  350,000/=  for  similar  injuries.

10. For the respondents, he submitted  that:

Damages are awarded as a compensation and not meant to punish the offending party or to enrich the aggrieved party but the same are  reasonably  to compensate  an  injured  party  for  the  injuries  sustained.

Pain cannot be quantified and hence any award is a token and   an attempt to   put back the injured party to its previous status before the accident.

The sum awarded must be  in proportion  to  awards   in  other  cases  of  those  who  have  suffered  injuries  of   comparable  severity.

He submits that the appellant sustained trauma to the left iliacfossa of  the  pelvis.  Threatened abortion as evidenced  by PV  Bleeding.

she said that she have fully healed.

She  prays  that  the  Judgment of the trial court  be  upheld  as the  same was  arrived  at  having  considered  all  the  relevant factors,  including  but  not  limited  to the  injuries  suffered  and  sums  awarded in other  cases,  where  similar  or  comparable  injuries  were  suffered.

They rely on the case of:  Eastern Produce Kenya Limited -versus- Joseph  Mamboleo Khamadi  (2015) eklr   where  Justice  Kimondo  awarded  Kshs; 50,000/=  for  injuries  which  were  more  serious  than  the  ones  sustained  by  the  plaintiffs.  In the case of; Joseph Agwenyi –versus- Samuel Ochillo  ( 2010)  eklr   where  Justice  A. Makhandia  awarded  Kshs; 50,000/=  for  injuries  that  were  more  severe  than  the  ones  that  were suffered  by  the  plaintiff  herein.

11. This is a 1st appeal and this court has jurisdiction to consider both facts and law.    The court is called upon  to evaluate the evidence which  was  tendered  before  the  trial court  and  draw  an  independent  conclusion.  See the Case of; SELLE -vs-  Associated Motorboat Company limited (1968) EA  123.

The court is supposed to leave room for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify before the trial court.

12. The plaintiff   Martha   Nyokabi  Gachini   testified before the lower court that she sustained  trauma to the left iliacfossa  of  the  pelvis.  Threatened abortion as evidenced by PV Bleeding. She said that she have fully healed. She said that she  did  not  have  this   problems  before  the  accident  and  she  prays  to be  compensated.   She was treated at Naivasha  District hospital .

Medical report by Doctor A. O.  Wandugu stated that;

- The injuries have resulted in a chronic disabling pains in the   affected areas, a source  of chronic  ill  health  which  Might   need  medication  on  and  off.

- The injuries have resulted in threatened   abortion.

The part  of  the  management   treatment  included  Ultra  Sound  ( Pelvis),Complete bed  rest, Analgescis  (NSAIDS) and allied management according to such injuries.

13. The award of damages is an exercise of discretion by the trial magistrate or Judge and as a general rule the court will not normally interfere with the award of damages unless the award is so high or inordinately   low or  founded  on  wrong  principles  as  stated  in  the  case  of;  Butt  -vs-  Khan ( supra)  and  Kenfro  Africa  Limited  & another -vrs-  Lubia  & another ( supra)so as to be an obvious erroneous  assessment of damages.

In the case of:Arrow Car Limited –versus-  Elijah  Shamara  Bimomo  &  2  others  ( 2004)  eklr   C.A.  The   court   stated  “the  principle  to be  observed  by  an  appellate  court  in deciding  whether   it    is  justified  in  disturbing   quantum of  damages  awarded  by  a  trial  judge  are  that  it  must  be  satisfied  that   either  the trial  judge  in  assessing  damages  took  into  account  an  irrelevant factor  or  left  out   of   account a  relevant  one  or  short  of  this   the  amount  is  so  inordinately  low  or  high  that  It  must  be  a  wholly   erroneous  estimate. “

14. In this case  the appellant had sustained  trauma to the left iliacfossa  of  the  pelvis.  Threatened abortion as evidenced by PV Bleeding. She

She  said  that  she  have  now  fully  healed.

Considering the authorities cited by the appellant, I find that the case cited by the appellant Catherine  Wanjiru  Kingori   & 3  others  -versus-   Gibson Theuri  Gichobi (2005)eklr  is  a persuasive decision  which  is  not  binding  on  this  court.

15. It is trite that damages awarded   in   cases where  a  party  has  sustained  injuries,  are meant  to  compensate    the   party  for  the   pain  and  suffering as  a  result  of  the  injuries   but  are  not  meant  to  enrich  the   party  and  in assessing   the   damages  the  court  will  look  at  the  injuries  sustained   and   comparable  awards  as  awarding  of  damages   is  a matter  of  discretion of  the  court.

In this case  the  issue  at  hand   is  not  whether  the  appellant  is  entitled  to damages,  rather  it  is  the quantum  of  damages  to  be  awarded.

16. There is no dispute that the appellant sustained trauma to the left iliac fossa of  the  pelvis.  Threatened abortion as evidenced by PV Bleeding. She  said that  she  have  fully  healed.   The injuries were not severe and according to the plaintiff  and   has not  hindered  her  from  doing   her   work  as  a pastor.

In the case of;Eastern Produce Kenya limited –versus- Joseph Mamboleo Khamadi (2015) eklra decision of the High court which was delivered in 2015, where the plaintiff had sustained an injury involving a cut on the finger, which I consider more severe, the plaintiff  was  awarded   general  damages   of  Kshs; 50,000/=.

In the case of; Joseph Agwenyi  -versus- Samuel  Ochillo  ( supra).   The plaintiff had sustained deep  cut  wounds  on  the  back,  bruises  on both  legs,  chest  contortion,  bruises  to both  hands  and  cerebral  coercion   and  pain  to  the  back.   The court awarded   some Kshs; 70,000/= in general damages.

This injuries were more severe than those sustained by the appellant herein.

17. It is Trite that the established methods of assessing damages are that comparable injuries should as far as possible be compensated by comparable awards.

In assessing the general damages, the trial magistrate   stated   that

Though Doctor Wandugu opined that chronic pain Martha  Nyokabi never  availed  proof  to show she was on  chronic  pain.

I have considered the above authority’s vis-a –vis Dr.  Wandugu’s documented injuries and find an award of  Kshs; 30,000/=  will  suffice.

18. From the fore-going  I  find  that  the trial  magistrate   did not  take  into consideration  irrelevant  factors  or  failed   to  take  into consideration  relevant  factors  which  are  the  grounds  upon  which  the  court  would  set  aside  an  award  of   damages.

The award is not erroneous, and is based on   a consideration of facts which   she observed  when  the  appellant  appeared  before  her.

Considering the injuries sustained, the award by the trial  magistrate   was   in   line  with    awards   in   comparable   injuries.

The award is a fair assessment   of  the  injuries  of  damages   in  line  with  the  injuries  sustained  and  they  cannot  be  said  to be   inordinately  too  low  or  inordinately  high.

IN  CONCLUSION:

- I find the  award  was  sufficient  in the  circumstances.

- I find  no   reason  to  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  discretion   of  the  trial  magistrate  in  assessing the  award  of  damages.

- The upshot is that this appeal   is without merit    and is dismissed.

- Each party to  bear   its  own   cost  in  the  appeal  and  in  the  lower  court.

Dated,  signed  at  Kerugoya  this 29th day of May 2020.

L.W.  GITARI

JUDGE