Imbezi v Fairmile School Limited & another (Civil Appeal 561 of 2019) [2024] KECA 486 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal restored a Kshs. 1.3 million injury award, ruling the High Court had no valid reason to reduce it.
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 first appellate court applied the correct principles of law in interfering with the award of the trial court
Key legal issues
#Whether the first appellate court applied the correct principles of law in interfering with the trial court's award of general damages
The High Court erred. It did not demonstrate that the trial court took into account irrelevant factors or failed to take into account relevant factors that would make the award of Kshs. 1.3 million so inordinately high as to justify interference. The appeal succeeded and the trial court's award was reinstated, subject to the 20% liability.
The Court restated the settled principles: an appellate court will not disturb a general damages award unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence in some material respect (Butt v Khan; Imanyara v Attorney General). The first appellate court gave no reasons meeting those thresholds. Notably, the same High Court judge in Jackline Kamunyi Kamau v Simon Kiiru Njoki had awarded Kshs. 1.2 million for comparable but lesser injuries, undermining the conclusion that Kshs. 1.3 million was inordinately high for multiple fractures.
The principles governing consistency and comparability of awards of general damages
No case is similar on all fours; there is no scale for measuring pain and suffering, but courts strive for consistency in awards so that similar injuries receive almost equal compensation.
The Court observed that accidents occur in different circumstances and the pain suffered by one person cannot be equivalent to another; people may suffer similar injuries but, depending on the level of medical attention received, the pain suffered will differ. Awarding damages is therefore not just a game of numbers but an exercise that balances awards so similar injuries receive an almost equal amount of compensation. This framework informs when interference with an award is justified.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will not disturb an award of general damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence in some material respect.
- Before an appellate court interferes with a trial court's award of damages, it must be demonstrated that the award is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages.
Court orders
#- 1.Set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27th September 2019 awarding the appellant Kshs 800,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering
- 2.Substitute the High Court award with the trial court's award of Kshs. 1.3 million as general damages for pain and suffering
- 3.The award of Kshs. 1.3 million to be subjected to the 20% liability recorded by consent of the parties and adopted as a partial judgment of the trial court
- 4.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, Nairobi
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal limited to issues of law (as stated in the judgment: 'This is a second appeal and therefore only issues of law are for our consideration')
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.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27th September 2019, awarding the appellant Kshs 800,000.00 as general damages for pain and sufiering and substitute it with the sum of Kshs. 1.3 million as awarded by the trial court.
An appellate court will not disturb an award for general damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate.
before an appellate court interferes with an award of the trial court, it must be demonstrated the award is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages, thus making an award an afiront to justice.
Considering the circumstances of this appeal, each party shall bear their costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Bashir Ahmed Butt v Uwais Ahmed Khan citation is internally inconsistent with the Butt v Khan citation quoted within the Imanyara passage - the same case appears with two different citations and years.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imbezi v Fairmile School Limited & another (Civil Appeal 561 of 2019) [2024] KECA 486 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/486/eng@2024-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.