NANCY OSEKO v BOARD OF GOVERNORS MASAI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL [2011] KEHC 1697 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT

OF KENYA

HIGH COURT CIVIL NO 171 B OF2009

NANCYOSEKO …………………….................................................……………….PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

BOARD OF GOVERNORS MASAI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL………………...…..DEFENDANT

JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff  herein, NancyOseko , filed this suit against    the Board of Governors, Masai High School, the defendant, seeking   general and special damages arising from an accident which occurred on 5/7/2006, when she was traveling   in motor vehicle KAL 750U  lorry, along   the Kericho-Kisumu   Road. The   plaintiff was at the time was a student  of Masai Girls High School and   the registered owner of the vehicle was the defendant. The said vehicle was driven by the defendant’s driver. The  plaintiff   was going in to perform in the music festival on behalf of the school. In the amended   plaint dated 11/2/2010, the   plaintiff   blamed the occurrence of the accident on the defendant’s driver, for driving at an excessive speed, failing to take a proper look out , failing to have due regard to the safety of those   in the vehicle. The defendant   filed a defence  on 14/10/2009 in which it was denied that the   defendant was the owner of the vehicle KAL 750U and that the plaintiff was a passenger   in the said vehicle on 5/7/2006. The defendant totally denied the allegations of negligence implied on   this agenda on that if such accident  occurred, it was due to reasons beyond human control for which the driver or the   defendant could not be held liable. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff suffered any injuries   as a result of the accident.

In her testimony the plaintiffrecalled   that she was on their  school   bus, along Kericho –Kisumu Road heading   for Nandi Hills for the music festival in Eldoret. She was seated near  the back   seat and could   not see the front. Suddenly, the vehicle suddenly   started swaying    in the road and rolled. She   found herself thrown out   of the bus   and could not   move. She was taken to Sihoam Hospital in Kericho and was transferred to Nairobi the next day. After test she was found to have   a fractured spine, could   not move and had bleeding in the chest. She was started on treatment.   was The defendant did   not   call   any evidence in support of that   defence.

Fromthe record, I noted   that the   plaintiff’s counsel  filed the  issues for determination . They were however, not signed by the defence Counsel. The issues are  as   herein below:-

1. Whether the defendant was the registered owner and user ofMotor vehicle KAL750U and at the material times driven byits servant driver or agent;

2. Whether the plaintiff was a passenger in the motor vehicleKAL 750U on the material date;

3. Whether the accidentwas caused by negligence of thedefendant’s driver servants or agents;

4. Whether the accident was caused by inevitable circumstancesbeyond the control of the defendant’s driver servants or agents;

5. Whether the plaintiffhas as a consequence of the accidentsustained   injuries and the extent thereof;

6. Whether the plaintiff as a consequence of the accident sufferedloss and damage, and if so, what   is the quantum of loss anddamages both special  and general;

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss of earningcapacity and /or diminished  earnings;

8. Whether the plaintiff sustained 100% permanent incapacityand therefore requires permanent   nursing   care;

9. Whether the plaintiff’s suit is fatally defective;

10. Who should bear the costs of this suit;

Though not agreed upon, all theissues seemed to have been captured by the plaintiff’s counsel and   the court will be guided by them. The parties   filed submissions and the defendant contends   that   since the plaintiff  merely suggested that the driver of the vehicle was speeding, the vehicle lost control,   and the overturned, she was not   able to cogently  testify   as to the circumstances that led to the accident and   evidence did not discharge the burden placed  on the plaintiff to prove the allegations of negligence on a balance of probability. Mr Mogeni, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the vehicle was driven at a high speed as alleged because if it   had been doing reasonable speed, the   driver could have controlled the vehicle. Since the defendant did not offer any evidence, the plaintiff’s evidence stands uncontroverted  . In the defence, the defendant had pleaded that the accident was caused by  factors beyond the driver’s control but no evidence was adduced to support that   allegation . Vehicles   do not just start swaying   in the road or roll. There must have been an explanation for it. There was none offered and the court can only conclude   that the driver was negligent,   as a result of which the   vehicle   lost   control, overturned and the plaintiff   was injured. The defendant suggested    that the plaintiff be held 50% liable but there   is no basis for  that. The   plaintiff was  not in any  way   in control of the vehicle in order to shoulder some of the blame The defendant’s driver was wholly to blame and liability will be assessed at 100 %.

Whether the accident  vehicle belonged to the defendant, theplaintiff produced   as an  Exhibit, a copy of Records from Kenya Revenue Authority as PEX   (a&b) dated 21/1/2010 which confirm that motor vehicle KAL 750U belongs   to Masai Girls   Secondary School.

The plaintiff narrated at lengthwhat injuries   she sustained and what treatment   she has undergone   since the accident.  She was treated at Siloam Hospital in Kericho , Nairobi Hospital, Mater Hospital and the Spinal Injuries Hospital. She was examined   by   Doctor   Siminyu (PW2) who was then the in charge of the Spinal Injury   Hospital   in Nairobi .Upon examining the plaintiff, the Doctor  found that she had been treated  for :-

1. Chest injury with accumulation of blood in the chest;

2. Head compression fracture of the thoracic spine no 12;

3. Loss of  sensation from the level T-12 downwards;

4. Loss of motor function from same level downwards;

5. Loss of control of urine and stool.

She underwent an operation of the spine where metals were fixedto   stabilize the spine, an open chest operation to remove blood; under went   physiotherapy,   occupational therapy;  ambulating   her on a wheelchair. The plaintiff  developed bed sores which  were healed, has to use medication to evacuate stool. The Doctor opined that she had permanent loss of the following functions;

1. Inability to walk. She has been confined to a wheel chair for life and a paraplegic and need confined to a wheelchair for life and was a lapel all her life.

2. Inabilityto control stool.

3. Inability to control urine, she was fitted with a catheter rundown,and urine bag, uses diapers   or napkins.

4. Ability to engage in sexual life in future is medical. Though she can conceive ,delivery would be by caesarian section.

5. Is affectedpsychologically- if  she does not  adjust she maynever engage in any gainful employment.

6. Predisposed to recurrent chest and urinary tract infections and infections due to  the nature ofher injuries, she requires frequent check-ups.

7 .She requires a special bed that can be turned by hydraulic or electronic system and a special mattress .

8. Regular follow up as an outpatientfor life on a three Monthlybasis.

The plaintiff testified that she now has a permanent nurse to attend to her and  that the wheelchairhas affected her   hands which are wasting away. Doctor Musau Performed   an open surgery on the chest and prepared a report ( PEX 20) . He   also made similar findings as Doctor Siminyu . He opined that   she suffered 100% disability.

The plaintiff was 19 years old when the accident occurred. As observed by the doctors,her life has completely changed and she has to adjust . The   plaintiff   said that she hopes   to go back to school one   day and   to be engaged in gainful employment.  For the time being and to realize   that , this court will need   to order some compensation which we know, cannot   put her back  in the shoes she would have been if she had not   been injured.   This court has to bear in mind the   principles   that guide assessment   of damages as espoused in West  (HI) and Sons  LTD VRS SHEPHERD (1964)   AC 326 which was adopted   in the case   of CECILIA   MWANGI   & Another Vr RUTH   MWANGI CA 251 /1996Lord Morris said:-

“Butmoney cannot   renew   a physical  frame that has been   battered and shuttered. All that judges and courts can do is to award   sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable   compensation. In the process there must be   the endeavour   to secure some uniformity in  the general method of approach. By common constent, awards must   be reasonable and must be assessed   with moderation. Furthermore, it is   eminently  desirable that so far as possible, comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. When   all this is said it still must be that amounts which   are awarded are to a considerable extent conventional”

I am also guided by Lord Denning’s decision in KIM PHO CHOO Vrs CAMDEN & ISLINGTOM  AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY(1979) 1 ,ALLER 332 The court said  that in assessing damages, the injuried person is only entitledto what is in the circumstances, a fair compensation, for both the plaintiff   and the defendant. Guided by the above   principles, the   plaintiff cannot be fully   compensated for all the loss suffered but the court should   aim at compensating   the plaintiff fairly and reasonably but in the   process should not punish the defendant.

In respect of  generaldamages for pain and suffering,   Mr Mogeni counsel   for the plaintiff submitted   an award of Ksh 2,500. 000/= He relied on the case   of DOMINIC MUTUA   MAWEU VRS   BESTWAYS PLUMBERS LTD (2005), an award   of   Ksh2,500,000 for similar injuries was made. The said authority was not   availed. On the other hand, Mr Musangi submitted that an award for   Ksh2,000,000/= be made for   loss and suffering, Mr  Musangi relied   on the case of Nairobi HCA 634/2001LUCY WANJA VRS PETER NGANGA NJENGA where   the plaintiff sustained the following injuries;

Burstfracture of   5th thoracic vertebrae with paraplegia; deep, cut frontal area; compound   fracture  1/3 of the right femur and fructure distal 1/3 of the right ulna styloid process.

The plaintiffwas permanently  injured and confined to a wheelchair and an award   of ksh1,500,000/=   was made. In   HCCA 3217/97 NICHODEMUS OWOUR   ONGONDO vr CHEMELIL SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED, the plaintiff   was injured on the spine resulting   in paraplegia, urine   and stool   incontinence and   the court   assessed   damages at Ksh2,000,000/= in 2001. Again in Nairobi HC1728/99 REUBEN MEMO WERUNGA Vrs  MICHAEL  ODINDO the plaintiff suffered 100% disability, required an orthopedic bed, wheelchair,   nursing care and physiotherapy. The court awarded ksh1,500,000/= as general   damages in the year 2000.   In my   considered   view, the above   cited case do compare well with the instant case, save that they were made about 10 years ago. Taking   into account the incidence of inflation, I will make an award of Ksh 2,500,000/= as general damages for   pain and suffering.

As respects loss offuture earnings,   the defendant submitted that it is a special damage claim that needed to be specifically pleaded and proved. In the case of MWANGI & ANOR V MWANGI (1996) KLR 2859, the court said ,

“loss of earnings is a special damage claim. It must be specifically pleaded and strictlyproved. The damages under the head of “loss of earning capacity” can be classified as  general damages but these have also to be proved on a balance   of probability . The   plaintiff can not  just throw figures at the   judge and ask him to assess such damages”

In the instant case, loss of future earnings was pleaded at paragraph (e) of the Amendedplaint.   The plaintiff testified   that she had  hoped to be a doctor upon completion  of her studies but   it seems those aspirations will never be realized. Mr Mogeni submitted an award of loss of earning capacity at Ksh17,500/= p.m for the rest of her life and   that a multiplier  of 35 years be used in determining  the   diminished or loss   of earnings  which   would be reasonable employment not based on   manual work. The sum totaled Ksh7,350,000/=.Counsel relied on the case of PIUS KIPKARERE MITE vrs LEONARD KISONGOCHI HCC220/2001 where a 46 years old man was involved in an accident, he earned 29,000/= per month   and the court used a multiplier of 20,000/= and multiplicand  of 10 years. On the other hand, Mr Musangi urged the court to consider  a net wage of Ksh5,000/= for quantifying the plaintiff’s loss . In the case of TRACOM LTD & JOSEPH MACHARIA V HASSAN MUHAMMED ADAM, NKU HCC 192/06, it was   held that  the court   adopted   the minimum   wages earned by the low wage earners as the multiplier. Counsel   also urged   the court to consider  the fact that   the sum would   be paid in lump sum, it  would   be invested and would yield returns of an income nature for the plaintiff’s use.In BEATRICE WANGUI THAIRU Vs HON EZEKIEL BARNGETUNY  HCA 1638/1988  the court said:-

“ In determing the multiplicand, the  important figures is the net earning of the deceased. The court should then multiplythe multiplicand   by a reasonable figure   representing so many years purchases. In choosing   the said figure, usually called the multiplier , the   court must bear   in mind in expectation   of   earning life of the deceased”

Counselsaid   that   the    multiplier   of   35   years adopted by   the plaintiff is excessive, unfounded  and instead suggested   a multiplier   of 15 years. In doing   my   best   to assess what   is a reasonable sum in the circumstances,  I will also   consider the decision in IRERI MUGO Vrs  GITHINJI NGARI HCA 5087/1990,the court said;

“ As regards the multiplier, I am of the considered view

that  when due regard is paid to the expectation  of working life and dependency  by the   named dependants as

well as the contingencies of life including   the fact that the

deceased could have died prematurely of a cause other than

the accident   that   took him”

Apartfrom taking into account the fact that   the money   is payable in lump sum  and will be invested, the court   must also consider the contingencies of life.  The plaintiff is   now 23 years old and taking into account contingencies of life, I will adopt a multiplier of 20 years. The  plaintiff had not completed school.  Her performance   in school   was not   disclosed  for the court to consider whether she would have made it  to become a Doctor. She still  hopes to go back to school and do something useful with her life. Taking into account the incidents of inflation, I would apply a multiplicand   of 10,000/= The   loss of earnings   would therefore work out to Ksh2,400,000/= (10,000. 00 X 20 X 12)

As regardsthe special damages on the   actual  medical expenses, Mr Mogeni put  the expenses already incurred   at 3,409. 036/80. Mr Musangi   had no issue  with the following expenses;

Siloam hospital   (EX2 )    Ks     81,500. 00

Nairobi Hospital (Ex5)       Ksh  605,079. 00

Mater Hospital (Ex7)           Ksh 460,842. 00

National Spinal Injury

Hospital ( ex 11)                  Ksh.     5,550. 00

Nairobi West Hosp(Ex13)                6,930. 00

Dr Musau for   review           Ksh       1,000. 00

TOTAL                                        1,660,911. 00

Counsel did not  disputethe claim for an  orthopedic bed and Reppo mattress which is a one off expense ,estimated at 400,000. 00 . The defendant disputed the claim for Ksh2,000,000. 00/= for allegedly incurred at   the   Spinal   Injury   Hospital, as not   proved. The   defendant also disputed the sums allegedly   paid to the following Doctors , that is;

Dr Esther   Munyoro Ksh 85,000. 00

Dr   J C Munene        Ksh 70,000. 00

Dr C K Musau            Ksh   70,000. 00

TOTAL                         Ksh 225,000. 00

The plaintiff produced copies of receipts purportedly issued by Dr Munyoro, Dr Musau and Dr Munene for Ksh 225,000/=, but they   were not   original receipts nor were they certified. There   was no proof   of   payments of the said sums. As regards the payment   of Ksh2,000,000/= at Spinal Injury Hospital, the same   was not proved.  The law is that special damages   must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. In this case, the payments to the Doctors and the Spinal Injury Hospital were not strictly proved. The plaintiff has only proved special damaged of Ksh1,660. 911. 00.

In the evidence of Dr Siminyu, he made estimates of what the plaintiff wouldincur in future-;The yearly cost would be as follows: -

1. Physiotherapy twice weekly  at 200. 00 Per session (200x2x52)Ksh 20,800. 00

2. Check ups and purchases of medicine 20,000 p.m (20,000x12)Ksh240,000. 00

3.     stool and bowl evacuationKsh 500p.m (500x12)                                                          Ksh6,000. 00

4.     Wheel chair at Ksh 60,000/=                                                                                             Ksh60,000. 00

5.     Nursing   care at Ksh20,000 p.m(20,000x12 )                                                            Ksh240,000. 00

6. Provision for hospital visit Ksh3000 per visit (taxi 1) (3000x12x2)Ksh 72,000. 00

TOTAL COSTSKsh 422,800. 00

If it is multipliedby20 years it comes to8,448,000. 00/=

Mr Musangi argued that if the annual sum is invested, it can bring in income to sustain the medical expenses and therefore submitted an award of Ksh 4,000. 00/= for future medical expenses. I do agree with the defence counsel’s view that since the sum awarded  will be paid lumpsum, ifinvested , it  will earn some income   to help sustain   the medical expenses. I would consider an award of Ksh 6,000,000. 00/= for future medical expenses.

In the caseof  KENYA BUS SERVICES LTD vrs   GITUMA (2004) EA 91, the court of   appeal held that ;

“And as regardsfuture medication ( Physiotherapy ) the   law is also well established that, although   an award of damages to meet the cost thereof   is made under the rubmic of general damages, the need for future medical care is itself special damage and is a fact that   must be pleaded, if evidence thereon is to be led and the court is to   make an award in respect thereof. That follows from the general principle that all losses other than those which the law does contemplate as arising naturally from the infringement of   a person’s   legal rights should be pleaded”.

All the damages that have been awarded  under this head have pleaded and proved.

In the end ,I find that  the plaintiffwill be  entitled to judgment  as hereunder.

1. General damagesKsh 2,500,000. 00

2. Loss offuture earnings                   Ksh 2,400,000. 00

3. Costs of future medication & care    Ksh6,000,000. 00

4. Actual medical expensesKsh 1,160,911. 00

5. Reppo bed and mattressKsh     400,000. 00

TOTAL Ksh.12,460,911. 00

The plaintiffwill also have costs and interest .

It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 24th DAY OF  JUNE 2011

R.P.V. WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr Nyaribo holding brief for Mr Mogeni for plaintiff

Mr Muchela holding brief forMr   Musangi for defendant

CC: Kennedy Oguma