SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

ELPHAS WANIRE MAKIN v EXCELLENT SECURITY SERVICES LTD [2002] KEHC 28 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 28 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
28
Citation
[2002] KEHC 28 (KLR)
Decided
11 June 2002
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment of Muchelule Chief MagistrateCoramD. A. ONYANCHA
Holding

The court awards Kshs.500,000 in general damages, Kshs.300,000 for further medication, and Kshs.500,000 in total damages, reduced to the sum awardable by the Chief Magistrate's court's jurisdiction.

Facts

The Appellant, Elphas Wanire Makin, was a night guard for the Respondent, Excellent Security Services Ltd. He was attacked by robbers on 6.5.1993 at Ganjoni area, resulting in a serious head injury, loss of consciousness, and partial paralysis. He underwent medical treatment and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic convulsions, left-sided hemiparesis, and reduced sensation on the left side.

Issues

  1. Duty of care
  2. Workman's Compensation Claim
  3. Damages assessment

Reasoning

The court found that the Appellant sustained serious injuries and awarded damages based on similar cases.

Outcome

Appeal upheld, judgment for the Appellant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Appellant for Kshs.500,000 in general damages, Kshs.300,000 for further medication, and Kshs.500,000 in total damages.
  • Interest at 14% from the date of judgment until full settlement.
  • Costs to the Appellant on the sum awarded to be agreed upon between the parties or be taxed.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Robinson Ndiri Gachui –vs- Kenya Tea Development Authority, Mombasa HCCC No.1679 of 1992 - Mbogholi, J.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case