Case Law[2026] KEHC 1131Kenya
Hk Motors Kenya Limited & 2 others v Ruguru (Civil Appeal E080 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 1131 (KLR) (6 February 2026) (Judgment)
High Court of Kenya
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER E080 OF 2023
HK MOTORS KENYA LIMITED………………………….1ST
APPELLANT
SIMJAM LOGISTICS LIMITED………………………..2ND
APPELLANT
SAMUEL NDERITU KARURI……………………………3RD
APPELLANT
VERSUS
ALEX WANG’OMBE RUGURU…………………....
…….RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the judgment of the Chief Magistrate’s
Court in Nyeri CMCC No. E214 of 2022 delivered on 5th
December 2023)
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court is the Memorandum of Appeal dated 19th
December 2023 filed by the Appellants HK MOTORS KENYA
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 1 of 17
LIMITED, SIMJAM LOGISTICS LIMITED and SAMUEL
NDERITU KARURI seeking the following orders:-
“1. This appeal be allowed.
2. This Honourable Court do proceed and set
aside the
award of loss of future earnings since the
same had
not been pleaded.
3. This Honourable Court do proceed and set
aside the award on general damages and
assess the same afresh in line with case law.
4. The costs of the subordinate court and this
appeal be awarded to the Appellant herein.”
2. The Respondent ALEX WANG’OMBE RUGURU opposed the
appeal.
The matter was canvassed by way of written submissions.
The Appellant filed the written submissions dated 6th June
2025 whilst the Respondents relied upon his written
submissions dated 23rd June 2025.
BACKGROUND
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 2 of 17
3. The Respondent filed in the Magistrates Court a Civil Suit
being Nyeri
CMCC No. E214 of 2022 vide a Plaint dated 25th July 2022
seeking the following orders:-
“(a) General Damages for pain and suffering and
loss of amenities, future medical expenses of
Kshs. 400,000/=
(b) Special damages.
(c) Costs of the suit plus interest.”
4. The brief facts of the case were that on 25th July 2022 the
Respondent was riding a motorcycle Registration KMEC
9205 along the Nanyuki - Naromoru Road heading towards
Nanyuki direction. That an oncoming motor vehicle
Registration KCE 663 U was being driven by the 3rd
Appellant. That the driver of the vehicle drove negligently
and attempted overtake when it was not safe to do so and in
the process encroached into the lane where the motor cycle
was being driven causing a collision. As a result of the
accident the Respondent sustained serious injuries for which
he claimed damages.
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 3 of 17
5. The Appellants filed a statement of defence dated 6th
September 2022 in which they denied the allegations of
negligence.
6. On 28th March 2023 the parties filed a consent on liability
at 80:20 in favour of the Respondent. This consent on
liability was duly adopted by the court on 28th March 2023.
On 8th December 2023, Hon. F. Munyi Magistrate
delivered a judgment finding in favour of the Respondent in
the following terms:
“1. General damages - Kshs.
1,000,000
2. Future Medical Expenses - Kshs.
300,000
3. Special Damages - Kshs.
550
4. Loss of future earnings capacity - Kshs.
300,000
Total - Kshs.
1,600,000/=
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 4 of 17
80% Kshs. 1,280,000/= Plus costs and interest at
court
rates.”
7. Being aggrieved by this judgment the Appellants filed this
appeal which appeal was premised upon the following
grounds:-
“1. THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in
fact and in law by awarding inordinately high
general damages to the Respondent.
2. THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in
fact and in law by failing to consider the
appellant’s submissions and authorities on
quantum hence arriving at an erroneous
decision.
3. THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in
fact and in law by awarding damages that
were inordinately high to constitute a
miscarriage of justice in the circumstances
of the case.
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 5 of 17
4. THAT the learned trial magistrate erred in
fact and in law by awarding loss of future
earnings that had not been pleaded contrary
to the decisions of superior courts.
5. THAT the learned trial magistrate’s
judgment was wholly not supported in law
by evidence tendered in court by the
parties.”
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
8. I have carefully considered this appeal, the record of
Proceedings in the lower court as well as the written
submissions filed by both parties.
9. This is a first appeal. It is settled law that the duty of the
first appellate court is to re-evaluate the evidence which was
adduced in the subordinate court both on points of law and
fact and come up with its own findings and conclusions [see
Peters -vs- Sunday post limited [1958] E.A 424]
10. In SELLE and Another -vs- ASSOCIATED MOTOR BOAT
COMPANY LTD & Others [2968] 1 E.A 123 it was stated
that:-
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 6 of 17
“……………………..this court must reconsider the
evidence, evaluate it itself and draw its own
conclusions though it should always bear in mind
[the fact] that it has neither seen nor heard the
witnesses and should make due allowance in this
respect. In particular this court is not bound
necessarily to follow the trial judge’s findings of
fact if it appears that he has clearly failed on
some point to take into account particular
circumstances or probabilities materially to
estimate the evidence.”
11. Likewise in GITOBU IMANYARA & 2 Others -vs-
ATTORNEY GENERAL [2016] eKLR, the Court of Appeal
stated as follows:-
“An appeal to this court is by way of a retrial and
the principles upon which this court acts in such
an appeal are well settled. Briefly put, they are
that this court must reconsider the evidence,
evaluate it itself and draw its own conclusions
though it should always bear in mind that it has
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 7 of 17
neither seen nor heard the witnesses and should
make due allowance in this respect.”
12. Given that the parties entered into a consent on the question
of liability this was not determined by the court. The court
adopted the consent on liability at 80:20 in favour of the
Respondent.
13. On quantum of general damages the Respondent told the
court that as the result of the accident he suffered open
segmental tibia/fibula fracture on the right leg and sustained
permanent incapacity of 20% as assessed by his doctor.
The Respondent also sought Kshs. 400,000/= for future
medical expenses.
14. The trial court awarded general damages of Kshs.
1,000,000/= having taken into account the 20% permanent
incapacity.
15. I am mindful of the fact that the measure of quantum lies at
the discretion of the judicial officer hearing the case. In
SOUTHERN ENGINEERING CO. LIMITED -VS- MUSUNGI
MUTIA [1985] KLR the Court held as follows:-
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 8 of 17
“The measurement of the quantum of damages is
a matter for the discretion of the individual judge
which was to be exercised judicially and with
regard to the general conditions prevailing in the
country generally and to prior decisions which
are relevant to the case in question.”
16. It is a principle in cases of assessment of damages that
similar injuries ought to attract similar awards. [see SIMON
TAVETA -VS- MERCY MUTITU NJERU [2014] eKLR]. I
have taken into account other cases where similar injuries
were suffered including the following:-
a) In George Riani Atungu v Moffat Onsare Aunga
[2021] eKLR, Kshs. 650,000.00 was awarded for a
fracture of the right tibia and fibula bones, a fracture of
the left radius and ulna, and contusions to the chest
and the pelvis.
b) In Nahson Nyabaro Nyandega v Peter Nyakweba
Omboga [2021] eKLR, it was a compound fracture of
the right tibia bone; cut wound on the right leg; and
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 9 of 17
bruises on the face, and the court awarded Kshs.
650,000.00.
c) In Ndwiga & another v Mukimba [2022] KEHC
11793 (KLR), the court awarded Kshs. 500,000.00 for
fractures of the tibia and fibula, and tenderness and
swelling on the left leg.
d) In Atunga v Mogambi [2022] KEHC 9854 (KLR), the
injuries were fractures of the tibia and fibula bones;
dislocation of the right hip joint; multiple lacerations on
the lower limb; bruises, with multiple cut wounds, on
the upper limbs; Dislocation of the right shoulder; chest
trauma; and bruises on the frontal part of the head, and
Kshs. 550,000.00 was awarded.
e) In Jitan Nagra vs. Abidnego Nyandusi Oigo [2018]
eKLR, the injury was a compound fracture of the tibia
and fibula bones, plus a segmental distal fracture of the
femur, and an award of Kshs. 450,000.00 was made.
f) In Kiama vs. Mutiso [2024] eKLR the injuries
suffered were a fracture of the left tibia bone (upper
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 10 of 17
1/3) and a blunt injury to the left leg and thigh, and the
court awarded Ksh. 400,000.00.
g) In Barnabas vs Ombati [2022] eKLR The court
upheld the trial court’s award of Kshs. 800,000/= for
general damages where the plaintiff therein had
sustained soft tissue injuries together with fracture of
the right femur, right humerus and fracture of the
pelvic bone which injuries are more severe than the
injuries in this case.
17. An examination of the above cases reveals that the range of
awards made for similar injuries is between Kshs.
400,000/= to Kshs. 650,000/=. In JAMES OKONGO -VS-
ELMET SAWE OGEGA [2021] eKLR, where liability was
assessed at 100% an award of Kshs. 800,000 was made.
18. It is my view that the award of Kshs. 1,000,000/= was in
the circumstances excessive given the injuries suffered. As
such I reduce the amount awarded for general damages
under this heading to Kshs. 800,000/=.
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 11 of 17
19. The Respondent sought an award for loss of future earnings.
This had not been pleaded in the plaint. It is trite that a
party is bound by his/her pleadings.
20. However at paragraph 9 of the plaint there was a claim for
loss of earnings. In MUMIAS SUGAR COMPANY LIMTIED -
VS- FRANCIS WANALO [2007] eKLR the Court of Appeal
held that:-
“It is important to realize that there is a
difference between an award for loss of earnings
as distinct for loss of future earnings are
awarded for real assess – able loss proven by
evidence. Compensation for the diminution in
earning capacity is awarded as part of general
damages.”
21. Loss of earnings is a claim that must be specifically pleaded
and
Proved. In the case of NYATOGO -VS- MINI BAKERIES
LIMITED
[2023] eKLR, the Court stated that
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 12 of 17
“……………..loss of earnings must be specifically
pleaded and proved. Usually, Loss of earning
capacity is concerned with the effect of the injury
on the person’s future earning ability as opposed
to the present loss. However, it is the
responsibility of the respondent to demonstrate
by way of evidence.” [Own emphasis]
22. The Respondent claimed that he was earning Kshs.
20,000/= per month as a motor cycle rider. No evidence
was tendered in court to prove this claim. I agree with the
decision of the trial court not to make any award under this
heading.
23. On loss of future earning capacity, the Court of Appeal in
Mumias Sugar Company (supra) stated that
Compensation for the diminution in earning capacity is
awarded as part of general damages. The trial court
awarded Kshs. 300,000 as part of the damages and cited
Nyatogo v Mini Bakeries Limited (supra) and utilized a
global sum approach in awarding under this heading which
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 13 of 17
discretion shall not be disturbed. In Mumias Sugar
Company (supra), the court stated:
The award for loss of earning capacity can be made
both when the plaintiff is employed at the time of the
trial and even when he is not so employed. The
justification for the award, when a plaintiff is
employed, is to compensate the plaintiff for the risk
that the disability has exposed him to either losing
his job in the future or case he loses the job, his
diminished chances of getting an alternative job in
the labour market while the justification for the award
where the plaintiff is not employed at the date of
trial, is to compensate the plaintiff for the risk that he
will not get employment or suitable employment in
future. Loss of earning capacity can be claimed and
awarded as part of general damages for pain,
suffering and loss of amenities or as a separate head
of damages. The award can be a token one, modest
or substantial depending on the circumstances of
each case. There is no formula for assessing loss of
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 14 of 17
earning capacity. Nevertheless, the Judge has to
apply the correct principles and take the relevant
factors into account to ascertain the real or
approximate financial loss that the plaintiff has
suffered as a result of disability. [emphasis my own]
24. Under the limb of Special damages the trial court made an
award of Ksh. 550/=. It is trite that a claim for special
damages must be specifically proved. Although the
Respondent made a claim of Kshs. 7,000 under this
heading he only availed by way of proof a receipt for Kshs.
550/= in respect of a motor vehicle search. I am not
inclined to interfere with this award.
25. Finally this appeal is partially successful. This court sets
aside the award of Kshs. 1,000,000 under general
damages made by the trial court and replaces it with an
award of Kshs. 800,000. The other awards remain
undisturbed. Therefore judgment will be entered in favour of
the Respondent (the Plaintiff in the Lower Court) as follows:-
(a) General damages - Kshs.
800,000
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 15 of 17
(b) Future Medical Expenses - Kshs.
300,000
(c) Special damages - Kshs.
550
TOTAL - Kshs.
1,100,550
Less 20% liability on Appellant (the Defendant in the Lower
Court.)
Final Award - Kshs. 880,440
plus costs and interest at court rates.
26. Each party to meet their own costs for this appeal.
Dated in Nyeri this 6th day of February 2026.
…………………………
MAUREEN A. ODERO
JUDGE
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 16 of 17
High Court Civil Appeal Case No. E080 of 2023 JUDGEMENT Page 17 of 17
Similar Cases
Nthiga v Mark One Express Limited & another (Civil Appeal E041 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 1450 (KLR) (10 February 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KEHC 1450High Court of Kenya83% similar
Matumbi v Tanui (Civil Appeal 67 of 2020) [2026] KECA 253 (KLR) (13 February 2026) (Judgment)
[2026] KECA 253Court of Appeal of Kenya80% similar
Ingati v Kumar & another (Civil Appeal E761 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 1236 (KLR) (Civ) (10 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 1236High Court of Kenya80% similar
Emu-Inya Enterprises Ltd v Odinga (Civil Appeal E018 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 1488 (KLR) (11 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 1488High Court of Kenya80% similar
Muchoki & another v Chege (Miscellaneous Civil Application E202 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 1297 (KLR) (5 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 1297High Court of Kenya80% similar