Wakilii

Chiori v Gabbett (C.A. 39-1933.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 134 · 1937 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya against quantum of damages awarded for personal injury
Decision
Appeal dismissed; damages award of Sh. 750 upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that a trial judge is not warranted in forming his opinion on damages merely upon the opinion of a government official or a departmental schedule, as this attaches undue scientific value to such opinion. However, the total award of Sh. 750 (representing over five years' wages for a native earning Sh. 12 per month) was not unreasonably small when measured against the appellant's standard of living and earning capacity. An appellate court should not interfere with damages unless the amount is wholly unreasonable. Costs were properly awarded on the lower court scale as the claim fell within subordinate court jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; damages award of Sh. 750 upheld

Facts

The respondent, a European settler, deliberately fired a shot-gun at the appellant, a Kikuyu locomotive fireman employed by the Kenya and Uganda Railway earning Sh. 12 per month. As a result of the shooting, the appellant's leg was amputated above the knee. The respondent was criminally convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant brought a civil action for damages for incapacity and pain and suffering. The respondent admitted liability and paid Sh. 750 into court. The trial judge (Lane Ag. J.) awarded the full amount paid in: Sh. 216 for incapacity and Sh. 534 for pain and suffering. The judge relied on evidence from Dr. Fisher, Chief Labour Inspector in the Native Affairs Department, who testified about a departmental schedule assessing the disability at 60% and calculating compensation based on three years' wages with a maximum of one and a half years' wages. The appellant appealed, arguing the damages were inadequate and that costs should have been on the Supreme Court scale.

Issues

  1. Whether a trial judge is warranted in relying upon a schedule of compensation prepared by a government official to assess damages for personal injury to a native.
  2. Whether the damages awarded (Sh. 750 total: Sh. 216 for incapacity and Sh. 534 for pain and suffering) were unreasonably small for the loss of a leg.
  3. Whether the Appeal Court should over-rule the trial judge's assessment of damages.
  4. Whether costs should be awarded on the Lower Court or Supreme Court scale.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Assessment of Damages — Personal Injury — Reliance on Departmental Schedules
A trial judge is not warranted in forming his opinion on the quantum of damages for personal injury merely upon the opinion of a government official or upon a schedule of compensation prepared by a government department, as this attaches a sort of scientific value to such opinion without proper evidential foundation.
Assessment of Damages — Personal Injury — Standard of Living and Earning Capacity
In assessing damages for personal injury to a working person, the standard of living must be largely measured by the injured person's earnings, and compensation should be viewed in proportion to those earnings rather than in absolute terms.
Appeals — Interference with Damages Awards
An appellate court has no right to over-rule a trial court's assessment of damages merely because the appellate judges take a different view or would have awarded more or less; interference is warranted only where the amount awarded is wholly unreasonable.
Costs — Scale of Costs — Jurisdiction
Where the amount awarded in damages falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a subordinate court and the case involves no difficult point of law, costs should be awarded on the lower court scale even if the action was brought in a superior court.

Cases cited (5)

  • Phillips v London and South Western Railway Company [1897] 5 QB 85
  • Thaker Singh v Inder Singh (1933) 14 KLR 42
  • Johnston v Great Western Railway Co [1904] 2 KB 250
  • Price v. Glynea and Castle Coal and Brick Co., Ltd., 114 Law Times R., p. 264
  • Reaney v. Co-operative Wholesale Society, 73, L. J. N.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Chiori v Gabbett (C.A. 39-1933.) [1937] EACA 134 (1 January 1937)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.