He relied on the case of Telkom Orange Kenya Limited v ISO Minor suing through his next friend & mother JN eKLR where the court stated:. Counsel stated that in assessing damages the court must also consider the current value of the shilling and the economy generally and also what he described as the “galloping inflation rates”. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal is unmerited and urged this court to find that the award was in tandem with the law, the nature of the injuries sustained by the respondent and past awards. 350,000/=.Ĭounsel urged this court to allow the appeal and award the costs thereof to the appellant. Shah Wholesalers Ltd & another v Joshua Ekeno eKLRwhere the plaintiff sustained compound fractures of the tibia and fibula and the appellate court upheld an award of Kshs. 1,500,000/= and substituted it with an award of Kshs. (c) Harun Muyoma Boge v Daniel Otieno Agulo eKLR where the plaintiff sustained multiple injuries and fracture of right tibia and fibula the appellate court set aside an award of Kshs. 800,000/= and substituted it with an award of Kshs. (b) Zachariah Mwangi Njeru v Joseph Wachira Kanoga eKLR where the plaintiff sustained comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula and the court set aside an award of Kshs. 400,000/= for compound fractures of the tibia/fibula bones on the right leg, deep cut wound and tissue damage on the right leg, head injury with cut wound on the nose and blunt chest. (a) Daniel Otieno Owino & another v Elizabeth Atieno Owuor eKLRwhere Lady Justice R. In support of this submission Counsel relied on the following cases:. 900,000/= was inordinately high and it ought to be substituted with a more reasonable award of between Kshs. Counsel submitted that the respondent having suffered fractures of the tibia/fibula and soft tissue injuries the award of Kshs. Ltd eKLR and also the case of Godfrey Wamalwa Wamba & another v Kyalo Wambua eKLR that comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. (iii) The award is so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages.”Ĭounsel asserted that the assessment of damages in this case did not take into account the principle in the case of Denshire Muteti Wambua v Kenya Power & Lighting Co. (ii) Left out of account a relevant factor or, “(i) Took into account an irrelevant factor or, Counsel for the appellant submitted that whereas the assessment of damages is discretionary this court is clothed with jurisdiction to interfere with the award if the trial court:. The appellant’s case is that the award is inordinately high, that it is not commensurate to the injuries sustained by the respondent and that it does not take into account past awards for similar injuries. Parties had consented to a contribution ratio of 75%:25% in favour of the respondent and liability is not therefore in issue. 900,000/= to the respondent as general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. This is an appeal against the trial court’s award of Kshs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |