Mutwiri v Ngoloma (Civil Appeal 158 of 2022) [2025] KEHC 18165 (KLR) (27 November 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEHC 18165 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Civil Appeal 158 of 2022
RC Rutto, J
November 27, 2025
Between
Titus Mutwiri
Appellant
and
Moses Nduku Ngoloma
Respondent
Judgment
1.The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court lodged this appeal on grounds of both law and fact. The appellant contends that the award of general damages at ksh.250,000/- was excessive and manifestly too high in view of injuries sustained. It is further argued that the trial court erred in law and fact by failing to accord due regard to the appellant’s submissions and authorities on quantum as well as the applicable principles for assessment of damages.
2.The appellant also stated that the trial court’s findings and decisions were against the weight of the evidence adduced. Accordingly, the appellant urged this court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of trial courts delivered on 25/10/2022 and substitute it with a fair judgment.
3.The appeal was heard by way of submissions.
Appellant submissions
4.The appellant set out one ground of appeal, namely whether the quantum was excessively high. it was submitted that the respondent sustained the following injuries; blunt injury to the neck, blunt chest injury; blunt injury left hand; blunt injury both legs; blunt injury to the left hip.
5.the appellant emphasized that the injuries sustained were soft tissue in nature and did not result in any permanent disability. They faulted the trial court’s award as being inordinately high and submitted that a sum of between ksh.50,000/- to ksh.100,000/- would have been reasonable and sufficient compensation. In support, they relied on the case of Power lightning Company Limited & anotherr versus Zakayo Saitoti Naingoki & Another (2008) eKLR which sets out the principles on assessment of damages.
6.The appellant further relied on the case of Ndugu Dennis versus Ann Wangari Ndirangu & another (2018)eKLR; Eva Karani & 5 others versus Koskei Kieng and another (2020) eKLR to urge the court to find that an award within the range of between ksh.50,000/- and ksh.100,000/- would suffice as adequate compensation. They therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed as prayed.
Respondent Submission
7.The respondent made reference to the case of Joseph Heavy Ruhui versus Attorney General (2001); Mbogo & another versus Shah (1986) EA 93 to submit that the applicable test was whether the trial court proceeded on the wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence in a material respect, thereby arriving at an award that was so inordinately high or low.
8.It was their submission that the trial court was guided by the case of Michael Okello versus Priscilla Atieno (2020) eKLR, where the claimant was awarded ksh.250,000/- for the following injuries; blunt head injury, blunt injury to the neck, blunt chest injury bruises and blunt injury to the upper limbs and bruises and blunt injury to right lower limb. They urged that the award in the present case was consistent with precedent and injuries sustained. The respondent further submitted that the appellants had not demonstrated that the trial court misdirected itself; acted on irrelevant matters, or failed to consider relevant factors.
Analysis and Determination
9.This appeal arise from the Small Claims Court. As an appellate court exercising jurisdiction under the Small Claims Court framework, its mandate is governed by Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. This provision limits appeal arising from Small Claims Court to matters of law only. The scope of what constitutes points of law has been well defined and settled. See the cases of Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 others [2014] eKLR; Bashir Haji Abdullahi versus Adan Mohammed Nooru & 3 others (2014)eKLR.
10.Upon reviewing the memorandum of appeal and the grounds therein, It is evident that the issues raised are premised on issues of law and fact. This court will therefore confine itself strictly to issues of law namely whether the trial court erred in the exercise of its discretion in awarding general damages. The appellant contends that the award was excessively high and inconsistent with the principles of assessment of damages, which require that damages should not be inordinately high or low, but commensurate with injuries sustained. Past decisions are to be taken into account as guidelines.
11.In this case, there is no dispute regarding the nature of injuries suffered. In its judgment the trial court referred to and was guided by the case of Michael Okello versus Priscilla Atieno (2021) eKLR where the court awarded ksh.300,000/- for injuries including ; blunt head injuries, blunt injury to the neck, blunt chest injury, bruises and blunt injury to the shoulder, bruises and blunt injury to the upper limbs. The trial court also considered the authorities cited by the appellant and found that the respondent’s injuries were more comparable to those in the case of Michael Okello (supra).
12.In deciding whether to interfere with this award of general damages this court finds useful guidance in the Court of Appeal case of Kemfro Africa Limited T/A Meru Express services (1970) and another versus Lubia another (1985)eKLR; Gitobu Imanyara and 2 others versus Attorney general 2016 (eKLR).
13.In awarding the damages I note and find that the trial court considered the nature of the injuries, and the authorities cited and was guided by past similar decisions, I am satisfied that the trial court did err and that the award of ksh.250,000/- was appropriate compensation as general damages for pain and suffering.
14.Consequently, I find that the award of the trial court was within the range of comparable awards for similar injuries. The upshot is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.
15.Orders accordingly.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT MACHAKOS THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025.RHODA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of;…………………………………..Appellant…………………………………..RespondentSelina Court Assistant