Katundu v DWA Estate Limited (Civil Case 475 of 2015) [2026] KEMC 394 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 industrial accident
The court found the pleaded injury of traumatic amputation of the 3rd digit of the left hand was supported by the medical evidence and uncontroverted
The medical report established that the plaintiff suffered a traumatic amputation of the 3rd digit of the left hand, which was the injury pleaded in the plaint. The defendant led no contrary evidence. With liability settled at 80/20 by consent, the plaintiff was held entitled to damages against the defendant on a balance of probabilities.
The appropriate quantum of general damages for traumatic amputation of a finger
General damages of Ksh. 350,000/= awarded, taking into account more severe injuries in comparable authorities and inflation
The court applied the established principles that damages compensate rather than enrich, awards should be commensurate with injuries, decided cases are mere guides, and inflation must be considered. Comparable awards of Ksh. 450,000/= involved more severe injuries (amputation at the distal interphalangeal joint; thumb amputation with fractures), justifying a lower award of Ksh. 350,000/= for amputation of the left middle finger.
Whether special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= were recoverable
Special damages awarded in full as the claim was pleaded and sufficiently proven
Applying the rule that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved (citing Nizar Virani and Ouma v Nairobi City Council), the court found the pleaded medical report cost of Ksh. 3,000/= sufficiently proven. The defendant had also raised no objection to that amount in submissions.
The applicable interest regime on the damages awarded
Interest on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full; interest on special damages from the date of filing suit
Guided by section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, Jane Wanjiku Wambui v Anthony Kigamba Hato and the Ugandan Supreme Court decision in Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General, the court held that interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing while interest on general damages runs from judgment, since general damages are only ascertained at judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- Assessment of general damages is a judicial discretion guided by comparable awards, and comparable injuries should attract similar awards with regard to inflation
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing of suit, 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. 350,000/= awarded against the defendant
- 2.Special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= awarded
- 3.Total award of Ksh. 353,000/= less 20% (Ksh. 70,600/=) leaving a balance of Ksh. 282,400/= 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.Defendant to pay 80% of the costs of the suit payable 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 the plaintiff's claim in negligence and breach of statutory duty arising from an industrial accident
Relief refused
#General damages of Ksh. 700,000/= as proposed by the plaintiff
The court awarded Ksh. 350,000/= instead, finding the injuries in the plaintiff's comparable authorities were more severe and factoring in inflation
20% of the damages claimed
By consent, judgment on liability was entered at 20% against the plaintiff, so 20% of the award was deducted
Full costs of the suit from the defendant
The defendant was ordered to pay only 80% of costs, reflecting the apportioned liability
Costs
The defendant will pay 80% of the costs payable 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.
Consequently, I make the following awards: 1. General damages for pain, sufiering and loss of amenities...........Ksh. 350,000/=
Balance payable to the plaintifi……………………………..………………………….…… Ksh. 282,400/=
The plaintifi is also awarded interest on the damages as well as costs of the suit. The defendant will pay 80% of the costs payable to the plaintifi.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Consequently, interest on general damages shall accrue at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full whereas interest on special damages shall accrue from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the consent as recorded on 20/4/2026, a date after the judgment date of 23/7/2026 is consistent with, but the suit was filed on 12/10/2015 - the consent date of 20/4/2026 appears anomalous in relation to a suit filed in 2015 and may be a typographical error
The citation for Ratcliffe v Evans is given as [1832] 2 Q.B. 524, which is internally implausible as the Q.B. series and that year do not correspond (the commonly reported citation is [1892])
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Katundu v DWA Estate Limited (Civil Case 475 of 2015) [2026] KEMC 394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/394/eng@2026-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.