Premium
Why High Court rejected hefty awards in fatal road crash cases
The High Court found that the awards were founded on speculation rather than evidence.
On April 2, 2022, three people — Stanslaus Mwanzia Senge, 65, Fredrick Mwangangi Nzuki, 26, and Agnes Koki Mwanzia, 58 — died in a single road accident.
Their families later sued the Board of Management of Kamuwongo Mixed Day Secondary School and Mr John Mwanthi Mwanzia at a magistrates court.
Liability was not contested. By consent, the defendants bore 80 per cent responsibility while the deceased carried 20 per cent contributory negligence. Only the question of quantum — how much compensation should be paid — proceeded to trial.
On February 1, 2024, a Principal Magistrate sitting at Kithimani Magistrates’ Court, delivered judgment awarding Senge’s family Sh2,582,460 for loss of dependency, Nzuki’s family Sh5,580,841.60, and Mwanzia’s family Sh897,625.
The respondents were dissatisfied and lodged three separate appeals at the Machakos High Court.
What followed was a stinging rebuke from the appellate court, delivered through two separate judgments, which found that the awards were founded on speculation rather than evidence.
In the case of Stanslaus Mwanzia Senge, the family claimed he was a businessman in Tala Town earning Sh45,000 per month. No documentary evidence was produced — no bank records, no receipts, and no financial statements.
The trial magistrate acknowledged that the income could not be proved. However, he proceeded to treat the deceased as a cashier, applying the minimum monthly wage of Sh32,280.75 from a Kenya Gazette, together with a multiplier of 10 years and a dependency ratio of two-thirds.
In a judgment delivered on October 28, 2025, Justice Noel Adagi found this approach fundamentally flawed.
Trial magistrate's error
“I find this position by the trial magistrate to be erroneous,” he stated. “There was no mention of the specific business the deceased was engaged in which would have convinced the court that truly, the deceased was a businessman. A businessman and a cashier are completely different occupations, and it was wrong for the trial magistrate to convert the deceased who was said to be a businessman into a cashier.”
The judge held that the multiplier approach was unsuitable “for the simple reason that the deceased’s earnings were not proved or ascertained.” He substituted the award with a sum of Sh600,000.
The case of Fredrick Mwangangi Nzuki, a 26-year-old who reportedly ran a shop in Nairobi, revealed a similar error. His family claimed he earned Sh45,000 per month as a businessman. Again, no proof was produced.
The trial court acknowledged that income could not be established, but still treated him as a shop assistant, applying a monthly wage of Sh20,517.80 and a multiplier of 34 years, assuming he would have worked until age 60.
Justice Adagi, in a concurrent judgment delivered the same day, was equally direct.
“There was no mention of the specific business or products that the deceased was engaged in or the type of shop in Nairobi which would have persuaded the court that truly, the deceased was a businessman,” he said. “A businessman and a shop assistant are completely different occupations.”
He awarded a sum of Sh1,000,000.
The third judgment, delivered by Justice Rhoda Rutto on April 9, 2026, concerned Agnes Koki Mwanzia, a 58-year-old farmer and kiosk operator in Tala. Again, no documentary evidence of income was produced. The trial court had applied a multiplicand of Sh14,025.40 and a multiplier of eight years.
Justice Rutto was scathing in her assessment.
“A court of law should be guided by law and evidence and not conjecture,” she ruled. “With due respect, the trial court reached the decision on multiplier and multiplicand through speculation and thus reached a wrong approach.”
In her analysis, Justice Rutto reiterated that appellate courts will not ordinarily interfere with damages awards unless it is shown that the trial court applied wrong principles or made an erroneous estimate of damages.
She found that threshold had been met.
Central to her decision was the misuse of the multiplier approach, which requires reasonably certain proof of income and working life expectancy. In this case, she noted, the deceased’s earnings were not established.
Absence of evidence
“The learned magistrate stated that the deceased was a farmer and added that the minimum wage proposed for a general labourer was too low without stating why,” she observed.
She also noted the absence of evidence such as household expenses that could have demonstrated dependency levels.
Justice Adagi, in his ruling, also quoted appellate guidance warning that the multiplier approach is a method of assessment, not a rigid rule, and must be abandoned where facts do not support its use.
The courts also revisited special damages. Justice Rutto reduced Mwanzia’s claim from Sh515,390 to Sh229,100, holding that invoices alone cannot prove payment.
“Invoices alone are not proof of payment. It is trite law that an invoice indicates a demand and cannot, without evidence of settlement, establish actual expenditure,” she ruled.
In all three appeals, the courts upheld the awards for pain and suffering at Sh10,000 and loss of expectation of life at Sh100,000. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeals, though appellants were directed to meet trial court costs.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
