1.At the onset, the respondent herein instituted a suit before the Chief Magistrate’s Court by way of the plaint dated May 3, 2012 pursuant to a road accident on April 16, 2011 along Ngong road near Kenol petrol station and sought for reliefs against the appellants in the nature of general and special damages plus costs of the suit and interest thereon.
2.The respondents pleaded in their plaint that on or about April 16, 2011 the 1st appellant’s vehicle registration number KAM 456C was being driven along Ngong road by the 1st appellant who is the driver, servant or agent of the 2nd defendant drove the vehicle negligently and hit John Mwangi Maina causing him fatal injuries.
3.The appellants filed their statement of defence denying the entire claim. The matter proceeded for hearing and judgment was eventually delivered in favour of the respondents in the sum of Kshs 968,256/=.
4.The appellant being aggrieved preferred this appeal and put forward the following grounds:
5.Directions were given that the appeal be canvassed by way of written submissions. At the time of writing this judgment the respondents had not filed their submissions. I have also considered the written submissions. The only issue for determination put forward is quantum.
6.This is a first appeal and this court is empowered to review and analyze the evidence on record and arrive at its independent conclusions. (See Selle & another v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd & others (1968) EA 123). Sir Kenneth O’Connor of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa in Peters v Sunday Post Limited  EA 424 stated as follows:
7.Awarding damages is largely an exercise of judicial discretion and the instances that would make an appellate court interfere with that discretion are well established. In Butt v Khan (1977)1KAR.
9.On general damages under pain and suffering, the appellant submitted that the trial award of Kshs 100,000/= for pain and suffering was excessive as no evidence was adduced by the respondents to indicate that the deceased did not die on the spot of the accident. On this the appellant placed reliance on the case of China National Aero Technology International engineering Corporation v Raphael Lenamboyo (2020) eKLR whereby the court awarded Kshs 20,000/= where the deceased died immediately after the accident.
10.The appellant further relied on the following authorities:
11.It is the appellant’s submissions that as per the above authorities that the trial court award of Kshs 100,000/= for pain and suffering was excessive in the circumstances.
13.In view of the above cited authority it is clear that when death followed immediately after the incident very nominal damages should be awarded. It was submitted that the deceased did not die on the spot of the accident. The same is proved by the death certificate which was admitted into evidence by both parties’ consent.
14.From the foregoing, it is evident that the deceased did not die immediately after the accident but on his way to hospital, he must have endured pain and suffering before he lost his life. In the case of Hyder Nthenya Musili & another v China Wu Yi Limited & another  eKLR, the court stated as follows-
15.In view of the above decisions and bearing in mind that this court has been invited to exercise its discretion when considering the award made by the trial court, I find that the award made in the sum of Kshs 100,000/= for pain and suffering was reasonable.
16.The appellant also submitted that the award of Kshs 200,000/= for loss of expectation of life in our instant case was excessive hence the trial court failed to appreciate the guiding principles it had to put into consideration when assessing the said award.
17.It is the appellant’s submissions that no explanation on how the court arrived at the award of loss of expectation being appealed from and that the court failed to take into consideration comparable awards as suggested by the appellant hence the award arrived at ought to be disturbed.
19.The trial court awarded Kshs 200,000/= for loss of expectation of life. The appellant contends that the figure is excessive and that an amount of Kshs 80,000/= would have been sufficient compensation
22.There are therefore some High Court authorities to support the award made by the learned trial magistrate. It has not been shown that the trial court used the wrong principles in making the award for loss of expectation of life. That this court may have made a different award if it had tried the matter itself is not a ground for setting aside the award. It is therefore my considered view that the award of Kshs 200,000/= for loss of expectation of life was not excessive.
23.In is clear that the trial magistrate weighed all this and came to the correct conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove her case as required by law. I find no reason to make me fault the learned trial magistrate.
24.The upshot is that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.