Mabia (Suing As The Legal Representatives Of The Estate Of Stephen Orupia (Deceased v Buluma (Civil Case E184 of 2024) [2025] KEMC 443 (KLR)

It was further averred by the Plaintiff that the accident caused the deceased to die at the tender age of 12 years while in good health thus causing the deceased’s family to suffer loss and dependency under the Fatal Accident Act. The Defendant entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence dated 14th February 2025 denying ownership of motor vehicle registration number KCT 179 A, and the occurrence of the accident herein. She also denied the particulars of negligence attributed to her driver. In the alternative, the Defendant pleaded that if the accident herein occurred then the same was caused wholly or substantially and/or contributed by the deceased’s negligence as set out in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence. Given the divergent positions taken by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on who was to blame for the occurrence of the accident herein, this matter proceeded to full hearing where the parties adduced evidence summarized below. Plaintiff’s Case PW1 Fanus Noah Mabia is the deceased’s grand father. He adopted his witness statement dated 10th December 2024 as his evidence in chief. He produced some of the documents in the Plaintiff’s list of documents and supplementary list of documents herein as exhibits. He testified that at the time of the deceased’s death, the deceased was staying with him but the deceased had his biological parents namely Idiba Mabia Bwali and Anna Mutando who were alive at the time of the occurrence of the accident that claimed the deceased’s life. In cross-examination, he testified that the accident occurred when the deceased was sitting on the stones that the Defendant’s lorry was ferrying at Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 2 of 20 Judgment

page 2 of 20

the time of the accident. He conceded that had the deceased not climbed the Defendant’s motor vehicle, the accident herein would not have occurred. PW2 Paul Oita adopted his witness statement dated 10th December 2024 as his evidence in chief. He recalled that on the date of the accident, the deceased was sitting on the stones that the Defendant’s lorry was carrying. He added that the deceased fell to his death when he jumped from the moving lorry along the Bungoma Malaba highway. He also stated that the deceased had not been engaged to ferry stones in the Defendant’s lorry. He concluded his testimony by stating that had the deceased not jumped from the moving lorry, the accident herein would not have occurred. PW3 No. 79655 CPL Nelson Ndegwa of Malaba Police Station investigated this case. His testimony was that the accident herein occurred when the deceased jumped from motor vehicle registration number KCT 197 A. He added that the said motor vehicle’s driver told him that he was not aware if the deceased had climbed the motor vehilce. He addded that the said motor vehicle had both big side mirrors at the time of the accident. He could not tell whoever was to blame for the occurrence of the accident. He also stated that when he visited the deceased and another boy in hospital, the other boy told him that the accident occurred when they were hanging behind the lorry. Bodaboda riders told him as much. His further testimony in cross-examination was that one could see whoever is hanging on the motor vehicle through the side mirrors depending on the luggage. Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 3 of 20 Judgment

page 3 of 20

Defendant’s Case DW1 Jackline Nabwire Buluma adopted her witness statement herein as her evidence in chief. She denied owning motor vehicle registration number KCT 179 A pleaded by the Plaintiff in the amended Plaint herein. In cross-examination, she admitted owning motor vehilce registration number KCT 197 A. She also admitted that her motor vehicle registration number KCT 197 A was involved in an accident and that she did not witness the accident. DW2 Ernest Okumu testified that on the date of the accident at around 1800hrs, he was riding his motor cycle from Bungoma headed to Malaba when a lorry overtook him. He saw two boys hanging behind that lorry. He then saw the deceased falling from the lorry to the road. ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION This court has duly considered the respective parties’ pleadings, the evidence on record, the written submissions filed, and all the authorities relied upon by each party in support of their cases. Whereas the Plaintiff pleaded in his amended Plaint herein that the accident was caused by the Defendant’s lorry registration number KCT 179 A, it turned out in the course of hearing this matter that the parties herein are in agreement that the accident that claimed the deceased’s life occurred when the deceased jumped from the Defendant’s motor vehicle registration number KCT 197 A (hereinafter referred to as ‘the lorry’) along the Busia Malaba highway. In view of the said agreement, it goes without saying that there was a clerical error in the Plaintiff’s amended Plaint herein on the lorry’s registration number thus the said clerical error is not fatal to the Plaintiff’s case. Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 4 of 20 Judgment

page 4 of 20

It is also not contested that the lorry was being driven by the Defendant’s agent and/or driver for the Defendant’s benefit at the time of the accident herein. Therefore, in the event this court finds the Defendant’s driver negligent for the occurrence of the accident herein, the Defendant will be vicariously liable for her agent and/or driver’s negligence. For purposes of the record, this court notes that the Defendant’s written submissions were limited to liability of the parties herein. The Defendant did not submit on quantum. The foregoing inclines this court to find and hold that the issues that commend to this court for determination are liability and quantum. Liability The Plaintiff pleaded in his amended Plaint that the accident herein was wholly caused by the Defendant’s driver’s negligence. The particulars of negligence that the Plaintiff attributed to the Defendant’s driver included allowing the deceased to board the lorry at the back, failing to take adequate precaution for the deceased’s safety, and driving the lorry without any due regard and attention. The Defendant on the other hand pleaded that the deceased was wholly to blame for the accident since he hang on the back of the lorry and failed to exercise due care and attention causing him to fall to his death. Section 107 (1) of the Evidence Act, Cap 80 Laws of Kenya sets out the legal burden of proof in the following terms: 107 (1). Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. Sections 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act on the other hand provide for the evidential burden of proof which is captured as follows: Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 5 of 20 Judgment

page 5 of 20

109. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of the fact shall lie on any particular person. 112. In civil proceedings, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any party to those proceedings, the burden of proving or disproving the fact is upon him. In Nandwa vs Kenya Kazi Ltd (1988) eKLR, the Court of Appeal observed that:“ In an action for negligence the burden is always on the Plaintiffs to prove that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant. However, if in the cause of trial there is proved a set of facts which raises a prima facie inference that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the Defendant the issue will be decided in the Plaintiffs favour.” The authorities above show that the Plaintiff herein bears the burden of proving that the accident herein occurred as a result of the Defendant driver’s negligence as pleaded in the amended Plaint, and upon the Plaintiff establishing a prima-facie case of negligence against the Defendant’s driver, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to disprove the particulars of negligence attributed to them. The Plaintiff led evidence from PW1, PW2 and PW3 in a bid to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident herein was caused by the Defendant’s driver’s negligence. PW1 conceded that he did not witness the occurrence of the accident. That means that his evidence on the circumstances under which the accident herein occurred was hearsay evidence that this court can not rely on in making a determination on liability. Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 6 of 20 Judgment

page 6 of 20

PW2 who reportedly witnessed the occurrence of the accident testified that he saw the deceased sitting on the stones that the lorry was ferrying only for the deceased to jump from the said lorry on his own volition so as to alight from the lorry. PW3; the accident’s investigating officer, on the other hand testified that he interviewed another boy who had been injured together with the deceased during the occurrence of this accident and bodaboda riders who reportedly told him that the accident herein occurred when the deceased and another boy jumped from the lorry which they were had hung at the back. PW3 added that an inspection of the lorry revealed that the lorry did not have any pre-accident defects. He also stated that the lorry had both side mirrors which its driver could use to see whoever was hanging behind the lorry depending on the luggage that the lorry was carrying. PW3’ testimony on the circumstances under which the accident herein occurred was corroborated by DW2’s testimony PW3’s and DW2’s testimony on the circumstances under which the accident herein occurred when analyzed together leaves no doubt in the mind of this court that the accident herein occurred when the deceased and another boy jumped from the lorry which they had hung at the back. The Defendant submitted that given that the deceased had unlawfully hang behind the lorry, he was the author of his own misfortunes thus this suit ought to be dismissed for want of proof of negligence on the part of the Defendant. In what appeared to be an acknowledgment by the Plaintiff that the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident, the Plaintiff submitted that in determining liability in this case, this court ought not to judge the deceased who was a 12 year old by the standard of an adult. The Plaintiff added that in the event this court finds that the deceased Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 7 of 20 Judgment

page 7 of 20

contributed to the occurrence of the accident, his degree of contribution ought not to exceed 20%. Having set out the parties evidence and submissions on liability and/or negligence, the question bothering this court at this stage is who was negligent in this case, and to what extent. In Cloud v Nuwez Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Bolam v Friem Hospital Management Committee {1957 1 WLR 582 – 586, Mcnair J defined negligence as follows:“In the ordinary case which does not involve any special skill, negligence in Law means a failure to do some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would do, or the doing of some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would not do, and if that failure or the doing of that act results in injury, then there is a cause of action. How do you test whether this act or failure is negligence? In an ordinary case, it is generally said you judged by the action of the man in the street. He is the ordinary man. In one case it has been said you judge it by the man on top of the Clapham omnibus. He is the ordinary man. But where you get a situation which involves the same special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill; it is well established Law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.” (emphasis added) To simplify the definition of negligence above, one can say that a person is deemed to have been negligent when that person acts or fails to act in a Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 8 of 20 Judgment

page 8 of 20

manner a reasonable man would act or fail to act in the circumstances thus leading to injury. This court is well aware that the deceased was a child aged 12 years. The liability of a child in an accident was elucidated by the Court of Appeal in Rahima Tayab & others v Anna Mary Kinanu Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1982 [1983] KLR 114; 1 KAR 90 where it was held that: “The practice of the court ought to be that normally a person under the age of ten years cannot be guilty of contributory negligence, and thereafter, insofar as a young person is concerned, only upon clear proof that at the time of the doing of the act or making the omission he had the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission…The foregoing decision does not say that a person under the age of ten years cannot be guilty of contributory negligence, but that such a person cannot normally be guilty of such negligence. In dealing with contributory negligence on the part of a young boy, the age of the boy and the ability to understand and appreciate the dangers involved have to be taken into consideration. A Judge should only find a child guilty of contributory negligence if he or she is of such an age as to be expected to take precautions for his or her own safety, and then he or she is only to be found guilty if blame is attached to him or her. A child has not the road sense of his or her elders and therefore cannot be found negligent unless he or she is blameworthy.” The authority above shows that a child can only be held to have contributed to the occurrence of an accident if such a child was of such an age capable of taking precautions for his own safety. The deceased was a child aged 12 years. He was not a child of tender years. A 12 year old child is capable of understanding the dangers of hanging on a moving lorry as well as the dangers of jumping from a moving lorry. Such a child is capable of taking precautions for his own safety. Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 9 of 20 Judgment

page 9 of 20

In this case the deceased acted negligent by hanging behind the lorry and jumping off the moving lorry in a bid to alight while well aware that such an action could cause him injuries. Does the deceased’s negligence absolve the Defendant’s driver from blame? PW3 testified that the Defendant’s lorry had both side mirrors. He added that the lorry’s driver could use the side mirrors to see any one hanging behind the lorry if the load the lorry was ferrying at the time of the accident permitted. There is no evidence that the stones that the Defendant’s lorry was ferrying on the date of the accident had blocked the side mirrors. It is also worth noting that the Defendant’s driver did not testify before this court to displace PW3’s evidence that he could use the lorry’s side mirrors to see the deceased hanging behind the lorry. In the absence of the lorry driver’s evidence on whether he could see the deceased hanging at the back of the lorry through the lorry’s side mirrors, it follows that the Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that had the lorry driver exercised due care and skill he could have seen the deceased hanging behind the lorry through the lorry’s side mirrors. This would have prompted him to stop and cause the deceased to alight from the Defendant’s lorry thus preventing the occurrence of the accident herein. The lorry driver, therefore, failed to exercise due care and attention expected of a driver in the circumstances. The lorry driver was negligent. It mattered not that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger on the lorry. The lorry driver owed the deceased a duty of care of stopping the lorry and ensuring that the deceased alights from that lorry. By failing to stop the lorry to ensure that the deceased alighted from the back of that lorry, the lorry driver breached the duty of care he owed the deceased. Therefore, the lorry driver must also shoulder some blame for the occurrence of the accident herein. Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 10 of 20 Judgment

page 10 of 20

When confronted with circumstances almost similar with the circumstances obtaining in this case, the court in Timba v Kiundu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Peter Wairiuko Wahito (Deceased) & another (Civil Appeal 164 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 9824 (KLR), faulted the lorry driver for failing to use the lorry’s side mirrors to see the deceased who had hanged at the back of that lorry and slipped only to be run over by the lorry. The court blamed both the lorry driver and the deceased for the occurrence of the accident. It is against this backdrop that this court finds no hesitation to find and hold that both the lorry’s driver and the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident herein. Be that as it may, this court is of the considered view that the lorry’s driver ought to shoulder a higher degree of blameworthiness compared to the deceased since he was in control of the lorry which is a lethal a machine. This court draws inspiration from Isabella Wanjiru Karanja vs Washington Malele Nbi Civil appeal No 50 of 1981, where Chesoni J; “What I find makes the distinction in their blameworthiness is the fact that Isabella had under her control a lethal machine when Washington had none and all things being equal she was under an obligation to keep greater lookout for other road users.” For the reasons above and taking the totality of the circumstances of this case into consideration, this court apportions liability in the ratio of 60%:40% in favour of the Plaintiff. Quantum Under the Fatal Accidents Act Loss of Dependency Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 11 of 20 Judgment

page 11 of 20

The deceased pleaded in his amended Plaint that the deceased left behind his grandfather who suffered loss as a result of the deceased’s death. PW1 also testified that the deceased’s biological parents were Idiba Mabia Bwali and Anna Mutando, who were alive at the time of the deceased’s death. The claim for damages for loss of dependency is grounded on section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act. Section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act provides as follows:Every action brought by virtue of the provisions of this act shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parents and the child if the person, whose death so caused and shall , subject to the provisions of section 7, be brought by and in the name of the executor or administrator of the person deceased, and in every such action the court may award such damages as it may think proportioned to the injury resulting from the death to the persons respectively for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting the cost not recovered from the defendant shall be divided amongst those persons in such shares as the court by its judgment shall find and direct. Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act on the other hand defines parent and child as including son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson or stepdaughter, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather or stepmother, and it includes illegitimate and adopted children. There is evidence on record that at the time of the accident herein, the deceased was survived by his parents and grand father. Parents and a grandfather are dependants within the meaning of the Fatal Accidents Act. Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 12 of 20 Judgment

page 12 of 20

Musyoka J in Lake Victoria North Water Services Board v Oduo & another (Suing as the admin of the Estate of Joyce Opondo - DCD) (Civil Appeal E016 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 3836 (KLR) stated thus about dependency: Dependency is about family members who were dependent on the deceased during his or her lifetime. The preamble to the Fatal Accidents Act states that it is designed for compensating the families of persons killed in accidents. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that children are expected to provide for their parents, and in most instances they do. In an African family setting, it is not unusual for parents to be dependants (see Leonard O. Ekisa & another v Major K. Birgen [2005] KEHC 2214 (KLR)). In Sheikh Mushtaq Hassan v Nathan Mwangi Kamau Transporters & 5 others [1986] KECA 42 (KLR), Kneller JA stated thus regarding this issue: In general, in Kenya children are expected to provide and do provide for their parents when the children are in a position to do so and to the extent of their abilities. The children are expected to do that by the established customs of the various African and Asian Communities in Kenya. This particular custom is broadly accepted, respected and practised throughout Kenya both by Africans and Asians. I would say the application of the custom at family level is the basis of the national ethos of being mindful of others’ welfare. In the Asian community, the customs is supported by the Hindu religion whose influence on the life of the Hindu community is well nigh total. That is common knowledge. The foregoing demonstrates that the deceased’s untimely death deprived the deceased’s parents and grandparent of the assistance they would Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 13 of 20 Judgment

page 13 of 20

reasonably expect to get from the deceased when the deceased would have come of age. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of dependency is properly before this court. The Plaintiff submitted that this court ought to adopt the multiplier approach in making an award for loss of dependency by applying the minimum wage of Kshs. 150,000/= - Kshs. 180,000/=, a mutiplier of 30 years, and a dependency ratio of 1/3 to make an award of Kshs. 1,800,000/=. This court takes the view that adopting the multiplier approach in making an award for loss of dependency for a child who this court can not tell how he will turn out to be in life will be akin to this court descending into the arena of speculations, surmissess, and imaginations. This position is buttresed by the position taken in Chhabhadiya Enterprise Ltd & another v Gladys Mutenyo Bitali (Suing as the Administrator and Personal Representative of the Estate of Linet Simiyu – Now (Deceased) [2018] KEHC 3317 (KLR) where the court stated as follows:I take the my view that the multiplier method where it involves minors is only speculative. In this appeal, the minor died at the age of 12years. The court cannot know what the minor would have turned out to be in life. There was no basis for the trial magistrate holding that the deceased would not have earned anything less than the minimum wage of 10,000/=. The magistrate did not even refer to the gazette notice that sets the minimum wage at Kshs. 10,000/ =. Though he adopted a multiplier of 30 years he did not consider the age of the dependant( the mother to the deceased) so as to determine the proper multiplier. The multiplier and the multiplicand were therefore speculative. The multiplier method was therefore not the most appropriate in assessing the damages for loss of dependency in this Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 14 of 20 Judgment

page 14 of 20

case. The global lumpsum method was the better approach in the circumstances of the case. I will therefore set aside the award made on the basis of the multiplier method in favour of an award based on the lumpsum/ global method In the circumstances, this court will adopt the global award approach in making an award for loss of dependency. In the Chhabhadiya Enterprise Ltd case (supra), the court made a global award of Kshs. 700,000/= for loss of dependency for a 12 year old child. In TB v MOO & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of the Late LM - Deceased) (Civil Appeal 79 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 3520 (KLR) the court made an award of Kshs. 800,000/= for loss of dependency for a 2 year old child. Considering that the deceased herein died aged 12 years old, and bearing in mind that the decision in the Chhabhadiya Enterprise Ltd case (supra)was made in 2018, this court makes an award of Kshs. 1,000,000/= for loss of dependency. Under the Law Reform Act (a)Loss of Expectation of Life The deceased died aged 12 years old. There is no evidence of ill health on the part of the deceased before he met his untimely death. Given the deceased’s death, all factors holding constant, he had a lot of years ahead of him but for the accident herein. The Plaintiff urged this court to make an award of Kshs. 150,000/= under this head. In Fredrick Kimokoti Imbali & 2 others v AKW & another (Suing as Legal administrators of the Estate of the the late AK (Deceased) Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 15 of 20 Judgment

page 15 of 20

[2019] KEHC 1838 (KLR) the court upheld an award of Kshs. 70,000/= under this head for an 11 year old. Guided by the authority above, taking into consideration the passage of time, and inflation trends in this country, this court makes an award of Kshs. 100,000/= under this head. (b) Pain and suffering The evidence on record shows that the accident herein occurred on 18 th July 2024. the deceased’s death certificate (Pexh.3) and post mortem report (Pexh. 5) show that the deceased died on 19th July 2024. The award under this head depends on the duration between the time the accident occurred and the time the deceased died. This legal position was aptly captured in West Kenya Sugar Co. Limited vs Philip Sumba Julaya (Suing as the Administrator and personal representative of the estate of James Julaya Sumba) (2019) eKLR, where the court observed that:“The principle is that damages for pain and suffering are recoverable if the deceased suffered pain and suffering as a result of his injuries in the period his death. In addition, a Plaintiff whose expectation of life has been diminished by reason of injuries sustained in an accident is entitled to be compensated in damages for loss of expectation of life. The generally accepted principle is that very nominal damages will be awarded on these two heads of damages if the death followed immediately after the accident.” In Mercy Muriuki & Another vs. Samuel Mwangi Nduati & Another (Suing as the legal Administrator of the Estate of the late Mwangi) [2019] eKLR it was observed that: Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 16 of 20 Judgment

page 16 of 20

“The generally accepted principle therefore is that very nominal damages will be awarded on these two heads of damages if the death followed immediately after the accident. The conventional award for loss of expectation of life is Ksh,. 100,000/= while for pain and suffering the award range from Ksh,. 10,000/= to Ksh,. 100,000/= with higher damages being awarded if the pain and suffering was prolonged before death.”The accident herein occurred on 14 th January 2023. The deceased’s post mortem report dated 15 th January 2023 shows that the deceased died a day later…Conventional sum of Kshs. 100,000/=’ In TB v MOO & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of the Late LM - Deceased) (Civil Appeal 79 of 2021) [2025] KEHC 3520 (KLR) the court made an award of Kshs. 100,000/= for pain and suffering where the deceased died several hours after the occurrence of the accident. The deceased in this case died several hours after the occurrence of the accident. He must have experienced excruciating pain before meeting his death. In view of the above and upon considering the authorities above, this court is of the considered view that the sum of Kshs. 100,000/= will be reasonable compensation for pain and suffering. Special Damages The Plaintiff pleaded for Special Damages in paragraph 10 of their amended Plaint. However, the Plaintiff did not plead the specifics of the Special Damages sought. The law in this jurisdiction is that Special Damages must be pleaded and strictly proved. This legal position was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Herbert Hahn v Amrik Singh [1985] eKLR as follows: Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 17 of 20 Judgment

page 17 of 20

“Special damages must not only be specifically claimed (pleaded) but also strictly proved…. for they are not the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of and may not be inferred from the act. The degree of certainty and particularity of proof required depends on the circumstances and nature of the acts themselves.” This court will proceed to determine whether the Claimant strictly proved the Special Damages pleaded in the Statement of Claim herein. The Plaintiff submitted that this court ought to award the Plaintiff Kshs. 30,000/= for funeral expenses, and Kshs. 20,000/= for filing of letters of administration. As earlier stated in this judgment, the Plaintiff did not plead the specifics of the Special Damages sought. The Plaintiff did not plead for an award of funeral expenses and the costs of filing for letters of administration. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings, and that submissions are not evidence. Therefore, the Plaintiff can not purport to pray for an award of a prayer that was not pleaded in his pleadings through submissions. The Plaintiff placed before this court court receipts for ad-litem for Kshs. 1,000/= and Lifecare Hospitals receipts for Kshs. 4,190/= in a bid to prove the claim for Special Damages. The production of those receipts was not contested by the Defendant. Consequently, this court makes an award of Kshs. 5,190/= under this head. DISPOSITION The upshot of the foregoing is that Judgment is entered against the Defendant in the following terms: a)Liability – 60%:40% in favour of the Plaintiff b)General damages under the Fatal Accidents Act Loss of dependency Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 18 of 20 - Kshs. 1,000,000/= Judgment

page 18 of 20

d)Damages under the Law Reform Act Pain and Suffering -Kshs. 100,000/= Loss of expectation of life - Kshs. 100,000/= c)Special Damages - Kshs. 5,190/= Grand Award - Kshs. 1,205,190/= Less 50% Net Award - Kshs. 723,114/= The General Damages will accrue interest at court rate from the date of this judgment till payment in full. The Special Damages awarded will accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing this suit till payment in full. The Plaintiff will have the costs of this suit. Judgment accordingly. Read, signed, and delivered in open court at Bungoma this 23rd day of October 2025 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Mr. Amasakha for the Plaintiff Ms. Nabulindo for the Defendant C/A: Mr. Rioba Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 19 of 20 Judgment

page 19 of 20

Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024 20 of 20 Judgment

page 20 of 20