Agroline Hauliers Limited v Kennedy Asiko Makhotsa
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal cut a road accident damages award from Kshs. 6.8 million to Kshs. 5 million because the High Court ignored comparable injury precedents.
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 award of Kshs. 6,800,000/= in general damages was manifestly excessive and inordinately high
- 2.Whether the learned Judge of the High Court failed to consider and distinguish binding precedent on comparable injuries, thereby acting on a wrong principle of law
Key legal issues
#Scope of second appellate jurisdiction
Jurisdiction confined to matters of law; concurrent findings of fact not disturbed absent absence of evidence or clear misapprehension of facts
The court invoked its settled second-appeal jurisdiction, citing Jaswant Singh Kahlon, and confirmed that assessment of damages remains a judicial discretion interferable with on wrong principles or material misapprehension of facts resulting in an inordinately high or low award.
Duty to consider and distinguish comparative precedent
The High Court erred by failing to address or distinguish the Sajjad precedent centrally placed before it, amounting to a misdirection in law
Although Riechi J. correctly stated the principles in Butt v Khan and recited the injuries, he concluded without comparative analysis that the award was sufficient. The Court held that a failure to engage with comparable-injury precedents is acting on a wrong principle of law, correctable on second appeal.
Quantum of general damages
Award of Kshs. 6,800,000/= was on the higher side; substituted with Kshs. 5,000,000/= taking into account the 4-year time gap, escalation of disability from 30% to 50%, and need for consistency
The court compared Sajjad (Kshs. 3,000,000/= for comparable lower-limb fractures, 30% disability, no shortening) with the present case, allowed an upward adjustment for inflation and aggravating factors, but found the leap to Kshs. 6.8 million leaned towards excessiveness, anchoring instead on comparative precedent.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters of law and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless based on no evidence or a clear misapprehension of facts
- Where a court is presented with precedents on comparable injuries, it must consider them and explain any departure; failure to do so amounts to acting on a wrong principle of law correctable on second appeal
- Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, attract comparable awards; the purpose of damages is restitutio in integrum, not a windfall
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed partly
- 2.Award of Kshs. 6,800,000/= general damages set aside and substituted with Kshs. 5,000,000/=
- 3.Net general damages after 30% contributory negligence: Kshs. 3,500,000/=
- 4.Net special damages after 30% contributory negligence: Kshs. 2,240/=
- 5.Total sum payable by the Appellant to the Respondent: Kshs. 3,502,240/=
- 6.Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
- HCCA No. 33 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal limited to matters of law under the applicable appellate framework; the court states 'This being a second appeal, our jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters of law'
Relief refused
#Appellant's invitation to reduce general damages to Kshs. 3,000,000/= as in Sajjad
Would be an injustice given the Respondent's 50% disability and limb shortening not present in Sajjad
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal
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 allow the appeal partly. We set aside the award of Kshs. 6,800,000/= as general damages and substitute it with an award of Kshs. 5,000,000/= (Five Million Shillings).
As the appeal has partly succeeded, we order that each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal.
Where a trial court or a first appellate court is presented with binding or persuasive precedents on comparable injuries, it is duty-bound to consider them and explain why it is departing from them.
The overarching purpose of such an award is restitutio in integrum, meaning restoration to the original condition; the award should be fair and reasonable compensation, not a windfall.
The total sum payable by the Appellant to the Respondent is Kshs. 3,502,240/= (Three Million, Five Hundred and Two Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Shillings).
Issues in the judgment
#Judge name discrepancy between coram and signature block
Plaint dated 2017 in a 2015-numbered suit concerning a 2013 accident
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Agroline Hauliers Limited v Kennedy Asiko Makhotsa", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal No. E018 of 2026 (formerly Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2051/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.