Absal & Sons Enterprises Limited & another v Mwangangi & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal cut two personal injury awards, confirming courts must match damages to comparable cases for similar injuries.
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 awards of general damages of Kshs 300,000/= to the 1st respondent and Kshs 1,500,000/= to the 2nd respondent for pain and suffering were excessive having regard to the injuries they sustained
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court's award of Kshs 300,000/= to the 1st respondent for soft tissue injuries was excessive
The award was not supported by comparable awards and the Judge did not indicate the comparable cases relied upon, justifying interference; reduced to Kshs 180,000/=.
The High Court revised the award downwards without indicating the comparable cases it relied upon. The Court examined comparable soft-tissue injury awards cited by the parties, ranging from Kshs 60,000/= to Kshs 350,000/=, and found the award unsupported by comparables, warranting interference with the Judge's discretion.
Whether the award of Kshs 1,500,000/= to the 2nd respondent for comminuted fractures of the tibia and fibula was excessive
The comparable cases relied upon involved plaintiffs with additional injuries beyond comminuted fractures, making the award relatively high; reduced to Kshs 1,000,000/=.
The Court distinguished simple, compound and comminuted fractures, noting the appellants' cited cases involved no comminuted fractures and were not comparable. The respondents' cited cases were comparable but involved additional injuries, so the award was relatively high and was reduced taking into account inflationary trends.
Legal principles established
#- A second appellate court confines itself to matters of law unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse.
- An appellate court may interfere with quantum where the trial judge took into account an irrelevant fact, left out a relevant one, or the amount is so inordinately low or high as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.
- Awards of general damages must be reasonable and comparable injuries should, so far as possible, attract comparable awards; an award unsupported by comparable awards justifies interference.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court at Malindi (Nyakundi, J.) dated 24th June 2022 in Malindi HCCA No. 19 of 2020 set aside
- 2.1st respondent awarded general damages of Kshs 180,000/= and special damages of Kshs 2,000/= (total Kshs 182,000/=), with 90% liability on the appellants (Kshs 163,800/=) and 10% on the 3rd respondent (Kshs 18,200/=)
- 3.2nd respondent awarded general damages of Kshs 1,000,000/= and special damages of Kshs 2,000/= (total Kshs 1,002,000/=), with 90% liability on the appellants (Kshs 901,800/=) and 10% on the 3rd respondent (Kshs 100,200/=)
- 4.Interest on each award payable by the appellants and 3rd respondent at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 5.Appellants to meet 90% and 3rd respondent 10% of the 1st and 2nd respondents' costs in the trial Court, High Court and of this appeal according to the proportion of their liability
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- Malindi HCCA No. 19 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court (the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional provision)
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 therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment delivered on 24th June 2022 by the High Court at Malindi (Nyakundi, J.) in Malindi HCCA No. 19 of 2020, and substitute therefor the following awards
given that liability was not contested, the appellants shall meet 90% and the 3rd respondent 10% of the 1st and 2nd respondents' costs in the trial Court, High Court and of this appeal according to the proportion of their liability
awards must be reasonable and, so far as possible, comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards
taking into account in ationary trends, we are of the view that an award of Kshs 180,000/= as general damages for pain and su ering arising from the soft tissue injuries su ered by the 1st respondent, and an award of Kshs 1,000,000/= as general damages for the pain and su ering arising from the comminuted fractures of the tibia and bula bones of one leg su ered by the 2nd respondent would be reasonable
Issues in the judgment
#Delivery clause is incomplete, stating 'THIS DAY OF, 2026' without the specific day, though the header gives 25 September 2026.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Absal & Sons Enterprises Limited & another v Mwangangi & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E031 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2106/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.