Onunga v Jonathan (Civil Appeal 20 of 2019) [2024] KECA 46 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal reinstated a Kshs 1,000,000 injury award, ruling higher courts cannot reduce damages unless the trial court made a clear legal error.
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 of the High Court was right in interfering with the quantum of damages that was awarded by the trial court as general damages
Key legal issues
#Principles governing interference by an appellate court with the quantum of damages awarded by a trial court
The High Court Judge wrongly interfered with the trial magistrate's award because the magistrate proceeded on the correct principles, took into account relevant factors (including inflation calculated from the date of the original trial court judgment), and the award was not so inordinately high as to justify interference.
The Court reiterated the Kemfro Africa and Butt v Khan principles: interference is justified only where the trial court considered an irrelevant factor, ignored a relevant one, applied wrong principles, or reached an inordinately high or low award amounting to a wholly erroneous estimate. The trial magistrate properly used the Eldoret Steel Mills award as a comparator, adjusted for inflation and the greater gravity of injuries (85% disability versus 35% in the comparator), and gave reasons. The High Court Judge misdirected himself by computing inflation from the date of the appellate affirmation rather than the original trial judgment. No basis for interference existed.
Comparability of injuries in the assessment of general damages
Comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards; the gravity of injuries, including assessed permanent disability, is a relevant factor in selecting and adjusting comparator awards, as is inflation and the value of the shilling.
The Court endorsed the approach in Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda and Ugenya Bus Service v Gachoki that awards should reflect the nature and gravity of injuries, that no two cases are exactly alike, and that current economic conditions must inform the assessment. The trial magistrate properly distinguished the comparator case on the degree of permanent disability (35% against 85%) and accounted for inflation over the roughly eleven years between the comparator award and his own judgment.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court may only interfere with an award of damages where the trial court took into account an irrelevant factor, left out a relevant one, applied a wrong principle, or where the amount is so inordinately high or low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
- In assessing general damages, comparable injuries should as far as possible be compensated by comparable awards, bearing in mind that no two cases are exactly alike.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed and the judgment of the learned Judge dated 20th November 2017 set aside
- 2.Award of Kshs 1,000,000 made by the trial magistrate in his judgment dated 20th January 2017 reinstated
- 3.Silvia, having succeeded in the appeal, to have the costs of the appeals in both the High Court and this Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal under the applicable appellate provisions of the Civil Procedure Act; specific provision not stated in the judgment
Relief refused
#No relief refused; the appellant obtained substantially all the relief sought
The appeal was allowed in its entirety and the trial court's award reinstated
Costs
Silvia having succeeded in this appeal she shall have the costs of the appeals in both the High Court and this Court.
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.
The principles to be observed by an appellate court in deciding whether it is justified in disturbing the quantum of damages awarded by a trial Judge were held by the former Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa to be that it must be satisfied that either that the Judge, in assessing the damages, took into account an irrelevant factor, or left out of account a relevant one, or that, short of this, the amount is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage.
we find that there was no justification for the learned Judge to interfere with the award as the trial magistrate proceeded on the correct principles and took in to account relevant factors, and the award to Silvia was not so inordinately high as to justify interference.
i. We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge dated 20th November, 2017. ii. We reinstate the award of Kshs 1,000,000/- that was made by the trial magistrate as per his judgment dated 20th January 2017 iii. Silvia having succeeded in this appeal she shall have the costs of the appeals in both the High Court and this Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently renders the comparator case name, citing it variously as 'Eldoret Steel Mills Limited v Elphas Victor Espila', 'Eldoret Steel Mills Limited v Esipila', and 'Eldoret Steel Mill Limited v Elphan Espila'.
Paragraph 12 of the High Court judgment as extracted contains an incomplete sentence ('The parties agree that the extent to which an appellate court may interfere with an award of damages (sic).'), apparently a transcription defect.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onunga v Jonathan (Civil Appeal 20 of 2019) [2024] KECA 46 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (memorandum of appeal dated 6th February 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/46/eng@2024-01-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.