Peterson Muthike Mugo v G.K. Kamuri & Sons Ltd [2020] KEHC 5241 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 33  OF 2016

PETERSON MUTHIKE MUGO....................................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

G.K. KAMURI & SONS LTD.......................................................................RESPONDENT

(Being   An Appeal  Against  the  Judgment   of  Hon.  D. NyabokeResident  Magistrate Wang’uru

Dated  23rd Day  of  May, 2016  in  Wang’uruPMCC   No. 67  of  2015Consolidatedwith  Wang’uru

PMCC   No.  65  and  66  of  2015)

JUDGMENT

This  appeal  arises  from  the   Judgment  of  the  Principal   magistrate’s court   Wang’uru  Civil  case   number   67  of   2015.  The plaintiff  had  filed  a  plaint  claiming special  damages  of  8,780/=  general  damages  for  pain  and  suffering and  loss  of  amenities,  cost  of  the  suit,  interest  on  a, b  and  c  above.

The  appellant  had  sustained  injuries    while   he  was  lawfully  riding  his motorcycle  registration  number  KMCW  072 B  Haojin  along   Kagio   Kiamichiri  -  Kadongu  murram  road  when  he   was  knocked  by  a  motorvehicle  KAK  871 Z   Isuzu   FVR.

The  appellant  sustained   injuries   as  a  result  of  the  accident  which  involved:-

1. Communicated   fracture  of   the  tibia  and  fibulia  bones

2. Blunt  injury  to  the  left  shoulder  with  limited  range  of  motion

3. Cut  wound  below  the  right  knee  area.

His  claim  was  therein  was  for  general  damages   for  pain  an d suffering, loss  and  amenities  and  for special  damages.

The trial magistrate entered judgment and awarded  the  respondent   95%   liability.  He proceeded to award the appellant general damages   of    250,000/=  and  special  damages  of   Kshs; 13,560/=.

The appellant was  aggrieved  by  the  award  of  damages,  and filed  this  appeal which  raised  the  following  grounds;

1. The trial magistrate erred in law and fact  in awarding   general  damages for  pain and suffering  and  loss  of  amenities  in  the  sum of   Kshs: 250, 000/=  which  sum  was  excessively  low  in   view  of  the  injuries  sustained.

2. The trial magistrate erred  in  law  and  fact  in  failing  to  trace,  locate  and  consider   the  plaintiff’s  submissions  despite  the  plaintiff   having  filed  them  on  time  and  confirmed  to  the   court  during  the  mention   to  confirm  filing  of  written  submissions.

The appellant  prays  that  the  award  of  general  damages  for  pain  and  suffering  and   loss  of  amenities  by  the  trial magistrate  to be  set  aside  and  this  court  do make  a fresh  award    thereof.

The appeal  was  disposed  of  by  way  of  written  submissions,  he  submits  that  in  her   judgment   the  trial  magistrate  did not  consider  the  appellant  submissions  on quantum  indicating  that   non  were  filed.  She consequently conceded  to  wholly  rely   on  the respondent  submission  and  awarded a  sum  of  Kshs; 250,000/=.

The appellant  submits  that  the  prevailing  award  for  pain  and s uffering  and loss  of  amenities  in  respect  to  loss  of  fracture  and  tibia  and fibilua  shaft  in  the  region   of  Kshs; 800,000/=  he  relies  on the  following  authorities;

“  Civil  appeal  no. 1 of  2017  formerly  Machakos  High  Court  Civil case No.  26  of  2014 – Justice  C. K.  Kariuki dismissed the  appeal  which was   challenging  the  an  award  of   Kshs;  800,000/=.”   H.C No.  95  of  2014   T.W. Cerere  set  aside  an  award  of  Kshs; 200,000 and  continued  to   enhance  it  to  Kshs;  600,000/=.  He   has   submitted that  the   award  of  Kshs; 200,000/=  was   inordinately  low  and   he   is  urging  the  court  to  set  aside  and  award  the  appellant   general  damages  for  pain  and  suffering  and  loss of  amenities  in  the  sum  of  Kshs; 900,000/=  with  interest  at  court  rates  from the  date  of  judgment  from  the   lower  court.

For  the   respondent;    In  relation to  the  injuries  sustained  by  the  plaintiff,  he  stated  that   he  had  fully  recovered  from the  injuries  and  walks  properly  without  the  aid  of  a  walking  stick. He has  relied  on the  case  of  Kenfro   Africa  Limited  T/a  Meru  Express  service  Gathogo  KAnini  -versus  .  A. M.  Lubia    & Olive  Lubia  (1985) 1 KAR  page  727. Where  the  principles   to be  considered  when  deciding   whether  to  disturb  the  quantum  of  damages  awarded  by  a  trial   judge  were  held  by  a  former  court  of appeal  of  Eastern  Africa  it  must  be satisfied  that   either  that  the  Judge   in  accessing  the  damages took  into  account an  irrelevant  factor  or  left  out into  account  a  relevant  one,  or  short  of  this  the  amount  is  so  inordinately  low  or  so  inordinately  high  that  it  must  be  a  wholly  erroneous  estimate  of  the  damage.

I have considered the application, the award of general  damages   is  an  exercise  of  discretion  by  the  trial  court,  and  the  appellate  court  will not  normally  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  discretion  unless   the  award  is  inordinately  high  or  so  inordinately  low  to be  wholly  erroneous   estimate  of  the  damages.

It will also consider whether while making the award of damages the trial magistrate took into account an irrelevant factor or left out a relevant one.

The appellant is contending that the trial magistrate did not consider the submissions and damages.

I have considered the authorities cited   in the persuasive decisions which the appellant   has annexed to this submission.

The decision cited show that the   High court has awarded general damages of   Kshs; 600,000/= to   Kshs; 800,000/=   for injuries similar to those sustained by the  plaintiff.

InAlfonza  Wothaya  Warutu &  Caroline   Bancy  Wawira  -vrs- JosephMuema.   In the case respondent was awarded Kshs; 800,000/= as general damaged together with   proven special damages to the sum of Kshs; 3,500/=.

The appellant was aggrieved by the Judgment and appealed to the High Court the Judge held; “that I have  looked  at  several  authorities  which  In  my  view  provide   better  guidance  in  the  instant  case.  That is:  Safco  Stores   Limited –vs-  David  Mwangi Kimotho  ( Machakos  High  court  no. 12. 2005) where the  plaintiff  had   sustained  fracture  left  tibia  and  left  tibula  and  fracture  below  the  elbow  deep  cut  wound  and  left  forehead  and  consequently  suffered  20%  disability,  and the   Appeal  court  upheld  the  award  of  Kshs; 800,000/=  in  general  damages.” He  also  considered   Beatrice  Wairimu  Wandurua  -vrs-  Didorman  Limited (2009) eKLR  where   the   appellant    sustained   serious  injuries  to  her  legs  which  resulted  to  compound  fractures  for  the  left   tibia  and  dislocation  of   the  left  ankle  joint  and  the  Court  appeal  awarded  Kshs; 550,000/=  and  he   came  to  the  conclusion  that  he  had  no  reason  to  disturb  the   award  made  by  the  learned  trial  magistrate.

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained the  injuries  which  are  quoted  above.

The  rational  of  award  of   pain and  suffering    is  explained  in  paragraph  883 in  Halsbury  Laws  of  England   4th  Edition  Vol. 12  ( 1) page  348  -883.  “Pain  and  suffering  damages  are  awarded  for  the  physical, mental distress  caused  to the  plaintiff,  both  pre-trial and  in  the  future  as  a  result  of  the  injury.   This include pain caused by the injury itself and the   treatment intended to alleviate it.  The awareness of and the embarrassment at disability or disfigurement or suffering caused by anxiety that the plaintiff’s condition  may deteriorate. ”

It follows that damages are intended to  compensate  the  plaintiff  for  the  suffering    and  the  loss  endured  as  a  result  of   the  injuries.   The court has to consider  the  loss  suffered   and  what   the  plaintiff   has  suffered  as  a result  of  the  injuries.  In this case the trial magistrate  in  her  judgment  stated  that   submissions  for  the  plaintiff  were  never  filed  and  she  is  left  to  consider  the defendants  proposal  visa vi   Dr. Maina’s  opinion  on resultant  disabilities  and  she a warded  Ksh; 200,000/=  in  general  damages.

I  find  that  the award  was  inordinately  too  low  in  view  of  the  injuries  sustained  by  the  plaintiff.     I find  that   this   is  reason  for  me  to  disturb   the  award  of  damages  and  based  on  the  cases  cited,  I  find  that   an  award  of  Kshs; 600,000/=  in general damages  for  pain  and  suffering  would be  appropriate. I  therefore   find  that  the  appeal  has  merit.  I  order  that  the  judgment of  the  trial  magistrate  on  the a ward  of  general   damages   is  set  aside   and  substituted  with  Judgment  for  the  plaintiff,  in  the  sum of  Kshs; 600,000/=  being  general  damages  for  pain  and  suffering.

I award the appellant the proven special damages of Kshs 13,560/-.

I award   costs to  the  appellant.

Dated, signed at Kerugoya  29th day of May 2020

L.  W.  GITARI

JUDGE