Josephat Wainaina Mwangi v Esther Jemeli Lekemet & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
H.A. Omondi
Judgment Date
May 05, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the key highlights of the Josephat Wainaina Mwangi v Esther Jemeli Lekemet & another [2020] eKLR case. Understand the legal principles and implications in this summary.

Case Brief: Josephat Wainaina Mwangi v Esther Jemeli Lekemet & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Josephat Wainaina Mwangi v. Esther Jemeli Lekemet & Joyce Jebet (Suing as the legal representatives and administrators of the estate of the late Daniel Kibiwott Rotich (deceased))
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2018
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: May 5, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): H.A. Omondi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented to the court include whether the trial court erred in the assessment of damages, particularly regarding the multiplicand used to calculate loss of dependency, and whether the awarded damages were excessively high or based on erroneous principles.

3. Facts of the Case:
The respondents, Esther Jemeli Lekemet and Joyce Jebet, filed a suit against the appellant, Josephat Wainaina Mwangi, following a fatal road traffic accident on April 18, 2015. The accident involved the appellant’s motor vehicle, which was allegedly driven negligently, resulting in the death of the deceased, Daniel Kibiwott Rotich. The respondents, as legal representatives of the deceased's estate, sought general and special damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act, including funeral and hospital expenses. A consent judgment on liability was established at 70:30% in favor of the respondents.

4. Procedural History:
The trial court found in favor of the respondents, awarding them damages totaling Kshs. 1,903,143. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the damages awarded were excessive and that the multiplicand used by the trial court was incorrect. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to consider his submissions adequately and that the assessment should have been based on the Regulation of Wages (General Amendment Order) 2015.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act regarding the assessment of damages, emphasizing that damages should reflect the net earnings of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants.

- Case Law: The court referenced previous cases, including *Esther Ndege Mwirigi & Anor v. Patrick Gitonga Mbaya* and *Beatrice Wangui Thairu v. Hon. Ezekiel Barng'etuny & Another*, highlighting that damages should not be based on speculation but on concrete evidence. Additionally, the case of *Jacob Ayiga Maruja & Another v. Simeon Obayo* was cited to illustrate that proof of a deceased's occupation and earnings does not solely rely on documentary evidence.

- Application: The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that while the respondents claimed the deceased earned Kshs. 28,000 per month from his charcoal business, there was insufficient documentary support for this figure. The trial court had used Kshs. 15,000 as a multiplicand based on the information in the death certificate, which stated the deceased was a driver. The appellate court found this approach flawed, arguing that the multiplicand should be based on predictable and concrete evidence, ultimately substituting the damages for loss of dependency with Kshs. 561,024.

6. Conclusion:
The appellate court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal in part by reducing the damages awarded for loss of dependency, which had been deemed inordinately high. The other heads of damages remained unchanged. The court emphasized the need for a principled approach to the assessment of damages, ensuring they are grounded in evidence.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment, as the ruling was made by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case illustrates the complexities involved in assessing damages in fatal accident claims, particularly the importance of a solid evidentiary basis for determining the deceased's earnings. The appellate court's decision to adjust the multiplicand serves as a reminder that courts must rely on concrete evidence rather than assumptions, ensuring fair compensation based on realistic assessments of loss. The ruling reinforces the legal standards for evaluating damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Josephat-Wainaina-Mwangi-v-Esther-Jemeli-Lekemet--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1413_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries