i) Whether the Appellant’s failure to include a certified copy of the Decree in his Record of Appeal was fatal
28.It was the Respondents’ submission that failure by the Appellant to attach a certified Decree to the Record of Appeal was fatal to his case. A look at the Record and Supplementary Record of Appeal clearly shows that a Decree had not been attached thereto.
29.Order 42 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: -Where no certified copy of the decree or order appealed against is filed with the Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant shall file such certified copy as soon as possible and in any event within such a time as the court may order, and the court need not consider whether to reject the Appeal summarily under Section 79B of Act until a copy is filed.
30.Order 42 Rule 13(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: -Before allowing the appeal to go for hearing the judge shall be satisfied that the following documents are on the court record, and that such of them as are not in the possession of either party have been served on that party, that is to say—(a)the memorandum of appeal;(b)the pleadings;(c)the notes of the trial magistrate made at the hearing;(d)the transcript of any official shorthand, typist notes electronic recording or palantypist notes made at the hearing;(e)all affidavits, maps and other documents whatsoever put in evidence before the magistrate;(f)the judgment, order or decree appealed from, and, where appropriate, the order (if any) giving leave to appeal:Provided that—(i)a translation into English shall be provided of any document not in that language;(ii)the judge may dispense with the production of any document or part of a document which is not relevant, other than those specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (f).
31.The Respondents submitted due to the lack of the certified copy of the Decree, the Appeal was incomplete and ought to be struck out. In the case of Mukenya Ndunda v Crater Automobiles Limited  eKLR the Court of Appeal emphasized that:-
32.I have gone through the Supplementary Record of Appeal and I note that the Appellant attached the Judgment. In my view, a Decree for purposes of an Appeal is an extract of the decision appealed against which is the Judgment. While it may be improper for a litigant to attach the Judgement appealed against and omit the Decree, I do not find such an omission fatal. I am inclined to agree with the findings in Nyota Tissue Products vs Charles Wanga Wanga & 4 Others (2020) eKLR where the court held that: -
33.Similarly, I am persuaded by Kemei J. in CWW (Suing as personal representative of the estate of PWK v Mark Kahenya & another  eKLR, where he stated that: -
34.When discussing whether a litigant ought to attach both a Judgment and a Decree, Nyakundi J. in Paul Lawi Lokale vs Auto Industries Limited & another  eKLR, stated that: -
35.Guided by the aforementioned authorities, I find that it would be too draconian to strike out the Appeal for the lack of a certified Decree. I also find that the Appeal is competent for determination.
ii )The appropriate amount of quantum payable to the Respondent.
36.The principles upon which an appellate court may alter an award by the trial court have been long settled. In the case of Johnson Evan Gicheru vs Andrew Morton & another  eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that: -
37.It is also a principle of law that awards must be reasonable and comparable to awards in similar cases. In the case of Tayab v Kinanu  eKLR, the Court of Appeal gave guidance as follows:-
38.As earlier noted, the parties entered into a Consent on 3rd March 2020, where liability was entered in the ratio of 75:25 in favour of the Respondents (then Plaintiffs).
39.In regard to the pain and suffering, the trial court awarded Kshs 10,000/=. The trial court stated that the basis of the award was that the Respondent testified that the deceased died on the spot. The Appellant submitted that since the deceased died on the spot, an award of Kshs 5,000/= would be sufficient. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the award of Kshs 10,000/= could not be considered high and that it could not be lowered any further. In the case of West Kenya Sugar Co. Limited vs Philip Sumba Julaya (Suing as the Administrator and personal representative of the estate of James Julaya Sumba)  eKLR , Njagi J observed that:-
40.In the case of Sukari Industries Limited v Clyde Machimbo Jumba  eKLR Majanja J. stated: -
41.I have gone through the trial court proceedings and it is not true that PW1 testified that the deceased died on the spot. In fact, he testified to the contrary. He stated that the deceased did not die on the spot but was taken to Kapkatet where he died after 30 minutes. He produced a Death Certificate and a Post Mortem Report which indicated that the deceased died on 23rd June 2018, which was a day after the accident. The Respondents did not controvert the evidence tendered by PW1. It is therefore my finding that the award of Kshs 10,000/= was insufficient in the circumstances of the case and I substitute it with the reasonable amount of Kshs 50,000/=.
42.On the issue of the loss of expectation of life, I am persuaded by the case of Mercy Muriuki & Another vs Samuel Mwangi Nduati & Another (suing as the Legal Administrator of the estate of the late Robert Mwangi)  eKLR where Muchemi J. stated: -
43.The courts have overtime adopted the figure of Kshs 100,000/= for loss of expectation of life. The Appellant proposed a sum of Kshs 30,000 under this heading and the Respondents submitted that the award of Kshs 150,000/= awarded by the trial court was reasonable. Guided by the aforementioned case law, I reduce the award under loss of expectation of life from Kshs 150,000/= to Kshs 100,000/=.
44.On the issue of loss of dependency, Section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act provides as follows:-Every action brought by virtue of the provisions of this act shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parents and the child if the person, whose death so caused and shall , subject to the provisions of section 7, be brought by and in the name of the executor or administrator of the person deceased, and in every such action the court may award such damages as it may think proportioned to the injury resulting from the death to the persons respectively for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting the cost not recovered from the defendant shall be divided amongst those persons in such shares as the court by its judgment shall find and direct.
45.The claim for loss of dependency constitutes the multiplicand, the dependency ratio and the multiplier. (See Melbrimo Investment Company Limited v Dinah Kemunto & Francis Sese (Suing as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Sinange alias Reuben Sinange (Deceased)  eKLR).
46.PW1 testified that the deceased worked as an electrician and would earn Kshs 20,000/= per month. I have gone through the trial court proceedings and there was no evidence on record to ascertain what the deceased actually earned and therefore the deceased’s income was unknown. In such circumstances, courts are minded to use the minimum wage as the base income when calculating the loss of dependency.
47.The Court of Appeal in the case of Isaack Kimani Kanyingi & another (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Loise Gathoni Mugo (Deceased) v Hellena Wanjiru Rukanga  eKLR held that a minimum wage ought to be adopted as a multiplicand where monthly income could not be ascertained. It stated: -
48.Similarly, in Frankline Kimathi Maariu & Another vs Philip Akungu Mitu Mborothi (suing as Administrator and Personal Representative of Antony Mwiti Gakungu deceased (2020) eKLR where the court dealt with a similar issue stated:-
49.PW1 stated that the deceased worked as an electrician, so I will use the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2018 which came into force on 1st May, 2018. The Appellant proposed the amount of Kshs 5,436/= as the multiplicand and the Respondents stated that the multiplicand should range between Kshs 18,845/= to Kshs 27,024/=.
50.I find that the deceased being an electrician, he was classified under Artisan Grade 3 in the Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2018. It is unknown where the deceased worked but from the pleadings, the deceased’s parents hailed from Migori County and further the accident happened in Chepilat in Bomet County, both areas being former municipalities. Doing the best I can, I find the appropriate multiplicand to be Kshs 21,175.15/=
51.The trial court used a multiplier of 30 years. The Appellant urged this court to adopt a multiplier of 30 years while the Respondents simply stated that the Appellant conceded to the trial court’s application of 30 years. I will also use the multiplier of 30 years.
52.On the issue of the dependency ratio, I agree with the Respondents that the ratio be 1/3. The only listed dependants of the deceased on the Plaint are his father and mother. It is a reasonable assumption that since the deceased was a young man with no wife or children, he would spend 1/3 of his earnings to take care of his parents. I am persuaded by Njagi J. in the case of Rodgers Kinoti vs Linus Bundi Murithi & another (2022) eKLR, where he said: -
53.In summary therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Kshs 21,175.15 X 12 X 30 X 1/3= Kshs 2,541,018/=
54.With regard to Special Damages, the Respondents stated that they had incurred Kshs 20,000/= as legal fees to procure the Letters of Administration ad litem. They produced the receipt and the same was marked as P. Exh 1(b). I find that the Respondents have proved this expenditure.
55.The Respondents testified that they had incurred Kshs 150,000/= as funeral expenses. They also stated that they could not keep the receipts because they were bereaved. Section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act makes provision for funeral expenses as follows: -In an action brought by virtue of the provisions of this Act the court may award, in addition to any damages awarded under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4, damages in respect of the funeral expenses of the deceased person, if those expenses have been incurred by the parties for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought.
56.In the case of Premier Dairy Limited vs Amarjit Singh Sagoo (2013) eKLR , the Court of Appeal stated that:-
57.Similarly, in the case of Jacob Ayiga vs Simon Obayo (2005) eKLR, the court held that;
58.Guided by the precedents above, it is my finding that the award of Kshs 100,000 for funeral expenses by the trial court was reasonable. In total, it is my finding that the Special Damages awardable are Kshs 120,000/=
59.In light of the foregoing, the amount awarded to the Respondents is as follows: -(i)Pain and Suffering Kshs 50,000(ii)Loss of expectation of life Kshs 100,000(iii)Loss of dependency Kshs 2,541,018Kshs 2,691,018Less 25% Contribution Kshs 672,754.50Kshs 2,018,263.50Add Special Damages Kshs 120,000TOTAL Kshs 2,138,263.50
60.The Appeal dated 6th October 2020 fails as the amount awarded to the Respondents is increased from Kshs 1,935,000/= to Kshs 2,138,263.50/=
61.Each party to bear their own costs in this Appeal while the costs in the suit remain as awarded by the trial court.