5.Quantum is a matter of judicial discretion which can only be interfered with if the court is satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong, because it has misdirected itself or because it has acted on matters on which it should not have acted or because it has failed to take into consideration matters which it should have taken into consideration and in doing so arrived at a wrong conclusion. (See Mbogo v Shah  EA 93 and Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Services (1976) & another v Lubia & another, No 2  KLR 30).
6.In Catholic Diocese of Kisumu v Tete  eKLR the Court of Appeal identified the circumstances under which an appellate court can interfere with an award of damages as follows:
7.Again, in Sheikh Mushtaq Hassan v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters & 5 others  KLR 457, the Court of Appeal stated that:And a member of an appellate court when naturally and reasonably says to himself ‘what figure would I have made?’and reaches his own figure must recall that it should be in line with recent ones in cases with similar circumstances and that other Judges are entitled to their views or opinions so that their figures are not necessarily wrong if they are not the same as his own.'
8.The Respondent medical report prepared by Dr Mwiti on February 1, 2020 reveals that he suffered fracture of right femur. At the time of examination, about 7 months after the accident, the doctor noted that Respondent lost the function of his right leg and depended on relatives for upkeep.
9.At the hearing, the Respondent prayed for Kes 1,000,000/- and cited John Mwangi Munyiri & another v Paul Wachira Njuguna  eKLR where the court awarded the sum of Kshs 900,000/= for injuries in the nature of comminuted compound fracture of the right tibia and fibula with permanent incapacity of between 30% and 50%.
11.The Court of Appeal in Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda Nyr CA Civil Appeal No 147 of 2002  eKLR settled the principles to be applied in assessing damages and stated that:
12.The Appellant submits that the lower court award of Kes 900,000/= for a single fracture of the femur was disproportionate, unfair and not justified, the appellant in support relies in the case of Peter’s V Sunday Post Limited  EA 424 as cited in the case of FM (Minor suing through Mother and next friend MWM v JNM & another eKLR Sir Kenneth O’Conner stated as follows:-
13.I have considered the authorities cited on behalf of both parties. The authority cited on behalf of Respondent is a recent cases relating to more serious injuries than the ones suffered by relates to more serious injuries than the ones suffered by the Respondent in this case. The ones cited on behalf of Appellant are comparable but I note that they are about 6 years old. I have considered the lapse of time and the fact that there was no evidence that Respondent had sought any further treatment since he was discharged from hospital on July 19, 2019 and I find that an award of Kes 900,000/- was I the circumstances on the higher side. The same is reduced to Kes 500,000/-.
16.Respondent did not make any submissions under this heading. I have considered the case of Fairley v John Thomson Ltd  2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 40 wherein Lord Denning MR stated as follows concerning loss of earnings:
18.There being no doubt that Respondent neither pleaded nor proved loss of earning, I agree with Appellant that the sum was not due to the Respondent and ought not to have been awarded.
19.Concerning special damages, Respondent only proved Kes 5,500/- and not Kes 10,500/- awarded by the trial court.
20.From the foregoing, I find that this appeal has merit and it is allowed in the following terms:1)The sum of Kes 900,000/- in respect of general damages is set aside and substituted with the sum of Kes 500,000/-2)The sum of Kes 200,000/- awarded in respect of loss of earnings is set aside in its entirety3)The sum of Kes 10,500/- in respect of special damages is set aside and substituted with the sum of Kes 5,500/-4)Respondent shall bear the costs of the Appeal