Whether the damages awarded were inordinately high.
13.On quantum, the Appellant alleges that the Learned Trial Magistrate awarded damages that were excessive considering the injuries sustained by the respondent.
14.General damages awarded at the lower court can only be interfered with if it is “so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate. It must be shown that the (court) proceeded on wrong principles, or that he misapprehended the evidence in some material respect, and so arrived at a figure which was either inordinately high or low.” (See Butt –vs- Khan, Nairobi Civil Appeal NO. 40 of 1977).
15.A similar view was expressed in by the Court of Appeal in Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others V Attorney General (2016) eKLR thus:-
16.The trial court considered the injuries in question and the submissions by the parties and awarded Kshs. 650,000/=.
17.The Appellant’s case was that the award by the trial court was excessive. He opined that the award of Kshs. 650,000/= should be substituted with an award of Kshs. 500,000/=.
18.This court is alive to what Kneller J.A, stated in Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Service Gathogo Kanini v A.M. Lubia and Olive Lubia (1985) that:-
19.In Gicheru v Morton & another (2005) 2 KLR 333, the Court of Appeal again stated that
20.The same Court similarly observed in Denshire Muteti Wambua V Kenya Power And Lighting Co. Ltd (2013) eKLR that:-
21.Having applied these principles to this appeal and also having considered the fact that the Respondent suffered skeletal injuries and multiple severe soft tissue injuries characterized as grievous harm. This court finds no reason to interfere with the trial court’s awards. Only in clear cases should an appellate court interfere with a trial court’s assessment of damages. The appellate court should not impose its own view on what it would have awarded had it been the one trying the matter at first instance.
22.Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent have shown that the awards were either extremely low or high to represent an entirely erroneous estimate of the awards the Respondent was entitled to.
23.In the instant case, this courts considered view is that the damages awarded by the trial are reasonable. This court finds no good reason to disturb the award given as it is found not to be inordinately low or excessively high and/or based on the wrong principles of law.