Kayago v China Road and Bridge Corporation (K) (Civil Case 362 of 2015) [2025] KEMC 286 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker injured by a falling iron sheet won Ksh. 162,400 after contributing liability, but lost most medical expenses because he never pleaded them in his lawsuit.
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 plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered loss as a result of the accident
- 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, the nature and quantum thereof
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved that he sustained injuries in the accident
The medical evidence proved the plaintiff sustained a deep cut wound on the left lower limb as pleaded, with no contrary evidence
Following the consent on liability (20%/80%), the only issues were injury and quantum. The medical report and treatment notes admitted in evidence showed a deep cut wound on the left lower limb classified as harm. The injury was pleaded in the plaint and there was no contrary evidence, so the plaintiff discharged the burden on a balance of probabilities and was entitled to damages against the defendant, who bore 80% liability.
Quantum of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
General damages assessed at Ksh. 200,000/=, guided by comparable awards adjusted for inflation
The court applied the principles from West (H) and Sons Ltd v Shepherd and Kim Pho Choo v Camden & Islington Area Health Authority (as adopted in Nancy Oseko) that awards must be reasonable, moderate and comparable. It compared the parties' authorities (awards of Ksh. 150,000/= and Ksh. 90,000/= from 2013-2018) and its own authority Kenblest Limited v John Mutisya Wambua (Ksh. 150,000/= in 2016), and, factoring inflation and the age of the awards, concluded Ksh. 200,000/= sufficed.
Proof of special damages
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; only Ksh. 3,000/= for the medical report was proven and awarded
The court restated the rule from Nizar Virani t/a Kisumu Beach Resort v Phoenix of East Africa Assurance Co. Ltd and Ouma v Nairobi City Council quoting Ratcliffe v Evans that each particular type of special damage must be pleaded with certainty and particularity. Although the plaintiff claimed Ksh. 40,000/= medical expenses in submissions, only the Ksh. 3,000/= medical report was pleaded and supported by a receipt, so only that sum was awarded.
Interest on the award
Interest on special damages from the date of filing suit to judgment; interest on general damages at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
Applying section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, Jane Wanjiku Wambui v Anthony Kigamba Hato and Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General, the court held that although the award of interest is discretionary, interest on special damages accrues from the date of loss while interest on general damages accrues only from the date of judgment since general damages are only ascertained in the judgment. The court adopted this two-stage approach in its final orders.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- Assessment of general damages is a discretionary exercise to be exercised judicially, with comparable injuries receiving comparable awards
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss, while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of Ksh. 200,000/= awarded to the plaintiff
- 2.Special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= awarded as pleaded and proven
- 3.Award of Ksh. 203,000/= subjected to 20% liability apportionment, leaving a balance of Ksh. 162,400/= payable to the plaintiff
- 4.Interest on general damages at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full
- 5.Interest on special damages from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment
- 6.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a negligence claim for damages for personal injury arising from an industrial accident
Relief refused
#General damages of Ksh. 250,000/= as prayed by the plaintiff
The court awarded Ksh. 200,000/= instead, having regard to the age of the comparable awards cited and inflation
Special damages of Ksh. 40,000/= for medical expenses
Only Ksh. 3,000/= for the medical report was pleaded and proven by receipt
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff
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.
In summary, I hold that the plaintiff has proven his case on a balance of probabilities as against the defendant. Consequently, I make the following awards: 1. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities...........Ksh. 200,000/= 2. Special damages………………………………………………………………………..…..Ksh. 3,000/= Total…………………………………………………………………………….……….…..Ksh. 203,000/= Less 20% liability…………………………………………………………………….……Ksh. 40,600/= Balance due to the plaintiff…………………………………………………….…Ksh. 162,400/=
The plaintiff is also awarded interest on the damages as well as costs of the suit.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
An award of damages is not meant to enrich the victim but to compensate such a victim for the injuries suffered
Given the age of the awards in the above authorities coupled with the vagaries of inflation, I find that an award of Ksh. 200,000/= in general damages would suffice. I award the same.
Issues in the judgment
#The case name of the third defendant authority is printed as a run-together citation of two cases: "Godwin Ireri v Franklin GitoongaPascal v Ouko [2023] KEHC 24463 (KLR)", but the narrative that follows describes a single appeal decided on 30/5/2018 reducing an award of 16/9/2015, which is inconsistent with a 2023 citation
The plaintiff's claim was for special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= in the plaint, but in submissions the plaintiff additionally prayed for medical expenses of Ksh. 40,000/= which were not pleaded in the plaint as reproduced; the court nonetheless described special damages as "proven as pleaded"
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kayago v China Road and Bridge Corporation (K) (Civil Case 362 of 2015) [2025] KEMC 286 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/286/eng@2025-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.