Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No 144 of 1990· [1991] KECA 12 (KLR)

Kenya Breweries Ltd v Saro [1991] KECA 12 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
25 July 1991
GAGachuhiMAMasimeOMOmolo
2,200 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan parents can claim compensation when a child of any age dies, even without proof the child earned money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal at Mombasa (Gachuhi, Masime JJA and Omolo Ag JA, in a single judgment of the court) dismissed an appeal by Kenya Breweries Limited against a High Court award of Shs 100,000 to Ali Kahindi Saro under the Fatal Accidents Act (cap 32) for the death of his six year old son in a road accident caused by the appellant's employee's negligence; liability was not appealed. The appellant argued, relying on McGregor on Damages, Luntz's Assessment of Damages and Barnett v Cohen, that no damages lay for a child too young to make a pecuniary contribution, and alternatively that the award was excessive. The Court rejected both grounds. First, it held that some damages for the death of a child of any age are payable to parents irrespective of proof of pecuniary contribution, because in Kenyan society the mere presence of a child in a family is a valuable asset, a view supported by the Court's earlier decision in Sheikh Mushaq v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters and High Court authorities such as Abdullahi v Githinye and Miriti v Feroze Construction Co Ltd. The child's age is relevant to quantum, not entitlement. Second, applying the established principle that the Court of Appeal interferes with a trial judge's assessment of damages only where wrong principles were applied or the award is so inordinately high or low that a wrong application of principles must be inferred, the Court found the Shs 100,000 award, made in 1990 and taking account of the depreciation in the value of money, was not open to interference, even though it would itself have awarded slightly less. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to damages under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of a young child

Holding

Damages are payable to parents of a deceased child irrespective of age and irrespective of evidence of pecuniary contribution.

Reasoning

Relying on this Court's earlier decision in Sheikh Mushaq v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters, the Court held that the established customs of African and Asian communities in Kenya, under which children are expected to care for their parents in adulthood, mean the presence of a child of any age is a valuable asset. High Court authorities awarding damages for very young deceased children supported this conclusion. The age of the child is relevant to quantum, not to entitlement.

p. 1
02

Principles governing appellate interference with an award of general damages

Holding

The Court of Appeal interferes only where wrong principles were applied or where the award is so inordinately high or low that a wrong application of principles must be inferred.

Reasoning

The Court applied the well-established restraint principle, noting that apart from the child's age the appellant showed no factor rendering the assessment wrong. Comparisons with earlier awards (Shs 8,000 in 1974; Shs 70,000 in 1982) showed the 1990 award of Shs 100,000 was not inordinately high, especially taking depreciation in the value of money into account. The Court would have awarded slightly less, but that alone did not justify interference.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Some damages are payable to parents for the death of a child of any age, without proof of pecuniary contribution, because in Kenyan society the mere presence of a child in a family is a valuable asset.
  • The Court of Appeal will only interfere with a trial judge's assessment of damages where wrong principles were applied or the award is so inordinately high or low that a wrong application of principles must be inferred.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court
HCCC No 602 of 1987
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court under the Fatal Accidents Act (cap 32) claim (as conferred by the Judicature Act/appellate framework; no specific article cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Breweries Ltd v Saro [1991] KECA 12 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1991). Civil Appeal No 144 of 1990. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1991/12/eng@1991-07-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.