Cherangany Hills Ltd & another v Wanyama (Suing as the Administrator to the Estate of Brian Khisa Wanyama) (Civil Appeal 243 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1030 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal replaced an inflated Kshs.2.16 million dependency award with a Kshs.1.6 million global sum because the deceased student's income was never proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether damages under the Fatal Accidents Act for loss of dependency were properly awarded where the deceased was an 18-year-old student with no proved income
- 2.Whether the award of Kshs.60,000/= for pain and suffering was justifiable
Key legal issues
#Whether proof of the deceased's actual income is a prerequisite to an award for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act
No. Children, regardless of age or whether studying, are expected to and do support their parents when able; a global award may be made where the multiplicand cannot be ascertained with precision.
Relying on Sheikh Mushtaq Hassan and Kenya Breweries Ltd vs. Saro, the Court held that dependency by parents on a child is recognizable in law even without proof of earnings. Where the deceased is a student with no ascertainable income, the multiplier-multiplicand method rests on no evidence, and a global award subject to the circumstances of the case is the correct approach, as adopted in comparable student-death cases.
Whether the multiplier of 30 years and multiplicand of Kshs.9,000/= adopted by the courts below were sustainable
They were not. They ignored the vagaries of life and were unsupported by evidence of the minimum wage; the dependency award was set aside and replaced with a global sum of Kshs.1,600,000/=.
The Court found the multiplicand to be a question of fact requiring proof, and no gazette notice supported the Kshs.9,000/= figure. The 30-year multiplier for an 18-year-old student ignored life's vicissitudes. Applying precedents on global awards for students of comparable ages, the Court substituted Kshs.1,600,000/=.
Whether the award of Kshs.60,000/= for pain and suffering was excessive given the deceased died hours after the accident
The award was affirmed; there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's discretion as upheld by the High Court.
The respondent's evidence was that the deceased was taken to hospital and died while undergoing treatment, so he did not die instantly. The appellants had not demonstrated the award was inordinately high or that the first appellate judge misapprehended the evidence. Interference requires a wholly erroneous estimate, which was not shown.
Distinction between damages under the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act
The Law Reform Act compensates the estate for pre-death pain, suffering and losses; the Fatal Accidents Act compensates dependants for financial loss including loss of dependency.
The Court clarified the distinct focuses of the two statutes to frame the appeal: the appellants challenged only the Fatal Accidents Act dependency award and the pain and suffering quantum, not loss of life expectancy or special damages. This statutory distinction informed which heads were open to challenge and which were affirmed unaltered.
Legal principles established
#- A second appeal in the Court of Appeal is confined to questions of law unless the courts below failed to consider relevant matters, considered irrelevant matters, or the decision is perverse
- Where a deceased's income cannot be ascertained with precision - as with a young student - a global award for loss of dependency is appropriate and courts should not be tied to mathematical multiplier/multiplicand calculations
- Courts assessing loss of dependency must take into account the vagaries and vicissitudes of life in fixing both the multiplier and the multiplicand
- An appellate court will not interfere with an award of general damages unless it is inordinately high or low or the trial judge misapprehended the evidence or proceeded on wrong principles
Court orders
#- 1.Affirmed the award of Kshs.60,000/= for pain and suffering
- 2.Affirmed the award of Kshs.200,000/= for loss of life expectation
- 3.Set aside the award of Kshs.2,160,000/= for loss of dependency and substituted a global sum of Kshs.1,600,000/=
- 4.Affirmed the award of Kshs.183,000/= for special damages
- 5.Subjected the total award to 15% contribution on liability
- 6.Awarded interest at court rates from the date of the trial court's judgment
- 7.Ordered the appellants to bear 85% of the taxed or agreed costs of this appeal and the appeal before the High Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kitale
- Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal confined to matters of law under Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Reduction of the pain and suffering award from Kshs.60,000/= to Kshs.10,000/=
The award was neither inordinately high nor low and the Judge's discretion was not erroneously exercised
Costs
The appellants shall bear 85% of the taxed or agreed costs of this appeal and the appeal before the High 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 award of Kshs.2,160,000/= for loss of dependency is hereby set aside and substituted with a global sum of Kshs.1,600,000/=;
This Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to questions of law only, unless it is demonstrated that the courts below in determining matters of fact failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations, or the decision is perverse.
If the multiplicand cannot be ascertained with any precision, courts can make a global award, which by no means is a standard or conventional figure but is an award that will always be subject to the circumstances of each particular case.
In our view, the two courts below did not take into account the vagaries of life in considering both the multiplier and the multiplicand.
the appellants shall bear 85% of the taxed or agreed costs of this appeal and the appeal before the High Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the present second appeal before the Court of Appeal is not stated in the judgment; only the lower court numbers appear.
The judgment inconsistently states the special damages figure - the claim is pleaded as Kshs.193,000 but the award and final orders refer to Kshs.183,000/Kshs.183,625.
The name of the respondent in this appeal is not stated anywhere in the judgment; the respondent is identified only through the deceased's estate.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- AGM (Suing on Behalf of a Minor AMG - Deceased) v Buscar East Africa Limited (Civil Case 273 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 89 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 89 (KLR)26 Mar 2026
- Mutunga & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of James Musyoka Mutunga - Deceased) v Menengai Oil Refineries Limited (Civil Case E117 of 2023) [2026] KEMC 85 (KLR)[2026] KEMC 85 (KLR)24 Mar 2026followed
- Leli & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Leli Julo (Deceased)) v Cornestone Clearing & Forwarding Ltd (Civil Appeal E006 of 2023) [2026] KECA 82 (KLR)[2026] KECA 82 (KLR)30 Jan 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cherangany Hills Ltd & another v Wanyama (Suing as the Administrator to the Estate of Brian Khisa Wanyama) (Civil Appeal 243 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1030 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Second appeal from Kitale High Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2017 (not stated in the judgment as delivered). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1030/eng@2025-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.