Daniel Kosgei Ngelechei v Catholic Diocese Registered Trustees Of Eldoret & another [2016] KECA 489 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that future medical and lost-income claims fail unless specifically pleaded and backed by evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge erred in dismissing the appellant's claim for future medical expenses in relation to the cost of replacement of the prosthesis in the future
- 2.Whether the Judge erred in rejecting the appellant's claim for loss of earnings and for loss of future earnings
Key legal issues
#Pleading and proof of special damages - future medical expenses
The trial court correctly limited the award to a single replacement of the prosthesis because there was no evidence of the claimed triennial replacement requirement
The appellant pleaded future medical expenditure but no amount. His testimony that the prosthesis needed replacement every three years was unsupported: none of the medical reports or the hospital letter mentioned such replacement. A court must be guided by expert evidence in medical matters, which was absent. The requirement to plead special damages warns the other party of the claim and evidence to be met and is not a mere technicality excusable under Article 159(2)(d).
Pleading and proof of loss of earnings and loss of future earnings
The claim failed both because pre-accident income was not pleaded and because no evidence of income before and after the accident was produced
Although the appellant pleaded total disability and loss of future earnings, he did not plead the income he was earning before the accident, which was within his knowledge. He produced daily worksheets for the matatu but no evidence of income while operated by the hired driver, nor of income from his subsequent farming and livestock business, so no basis existed for computing any award under those heads.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved; the pleading requirement is not a procedural technicality curable under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
- Prospective medical expenses not yet crystallized may be claimed as general damages but cannot be awarded without evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- H.C.C.C. No. 111 of 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court (Constitution of Kenya, Article 164; Court of Appeal Act jurisdiction over appeals from the High Court)
Relief refused
#Award of damages for future medical expenses (cost of replacement of prosthesis every three years)
No evidence supported the claim that the prosthesis required replacement every three years; expert evidence was lacking
Award of damages for loss of earnings and loss of future earnings
Claim not specifically pleaded as to income earned prior to the accident and not proved by evidence
Reliance on Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution to cure failure to plead and prove special damages
The requirement to plead special damages is not a procedural technicality
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
We do not think that requirement is a ‘procedural technicality’ for purposes of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The requirement that special damages should be pleaded serves the useful purpose of warning the other party of the nature or type of claim and evidence that he will be confronted with at the trial.
The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. We think the appropriate order as regards costs is for each party to bear their own costs. Orders accordingly.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Barasa v Wamalwa (Civil Case E261 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 560 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 560 (KLR)30 Apr 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Daniel Kosgei Ngelechei v Catholic Diocese Registered Trustees Of Eldoret & another [2016] KECA 489 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/489/eng@2016-06-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.