On 24th January, 1972, we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.
The respondent, (to whom we shall refer as “the plaintiff”) brought an
action against the appellant (to whom we shall refer as “the defendant”) for
shs.2, 390/- as special damages and for general damages for unlawful assault
by the defendant on 23rd March) 1969, as a result of which the plaintiff's
right arm was fractured.
 Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff, who is a widow, received a
letter from her brother-in-law living in England in which he repeated
allegations he had heard about the plaintiff's four daughters, from one
Mohamed Ashiq, the defendant's brother.
 On 23rd March, 1969, at about 11 a.m. Mohamed Ashiq went to the
plaintiff's house at her request and there he was shown the said letter by
her in the presence of Mohamed Rafiq, Mohamed Akram and Shahd. A fight
appears to have taken place. Mohamed Ashiq then left but according to the
plaintiff returned soon after with the defendant one Baker and two Africans
the defendant held a bolt and the two Africans had long chains while Baker
held an iron rod.
 When the plaintiff's landlady threatened to call the police they drove
away. At about 2.30 p.m. on the same day the plaintiff, with her daughter
Nargeis went to Firoz Din's house to show him (Firoz Din) the said letter.
Firoz Din's house is “just in front of" the defendant's house. However,
before they could reach Firoz Din's house, they met the defendant's wife
Inayat and another lady with six or seven children. The defendant's wife
called the plaintiff a prostitute and a bastard.The plaintiff answered in
 The children started shouting and a crowd gathered. The defendant came
out of his house holding a hockey stick. When the plaintiff saw the
defendant's wife seize Nargeis by the hair and pull her down towards the
ground, she (the plaintiff) took off a slipper and was about to strike the
defendant's wife with it when the defendant struck her on the wrist with the
hockey stick he was holding.
 She fell down owing to pain and shock. She was removed from the scene by
the Police who took her to Radiant Health Clinic. Dr Haq (P.W.1l) found that
she was severely shocked and in great pain and had a Colles fracture of the
right forearm. She was hospitalised for about 14 days.
 The defendant denied assaulting the plaintiff. His case supported by the
evidence of three police officers, is that the plaintiff broke her arm when
she tripped and fell. The learned judge found that the fight took place as
described by the plaintiff and her witnesses and that the defendant
intervened using a hockey stick as a weapon when he could have merely pushed
the women apart.
 He also found that the defendant had no intention of breaking the
plaintiff's arm but that he (the defendant) struck her without justification
which owing to the plaintiff's age resulted in the Calles fracture described
by Dr Haq (P.W.l). The learned judge then awarded damages for shs.4.500/-
and gave judgment for the plaintiff for that amount plus shs.1,740/- being
the proved special damages, making a total of shs.6,240/-.
 The defendant appealed against that decision to this Court.
 Mr. Gautama for the defendant has attacked the findings of the learned
judge and has submitted that this Court is in as good a position as the
court below to evaluate evidence and draw its own inferences and that
therefore in this case this Court should review the evidence and make its
own findings. Mr. Gautama conceded that there was a fight but he has
submitted that it was provoked and instigated by the plaintiff who went to
the defendant's house and used abusive language.
 Mr. Gautama argued that the trial judge erred in dis¬believing Francis
Kathiiri (D.W.l) 1 Peter Mukwani,(D.W.2) and Joash Orieko (D.W.3) three
police officers, as their evidence was more consistent with the entries in
the Occurrence Book, kept at the Pangani Police Station than was the
evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses. He also submitted that the
trial judge gave undue emphasis to the question of criminal proceedings
which had been brought against the defendant and ended in reconciliation, as
this was pre judicial to the defendant.
 It is true that it would have been open to the learned judge, on the
evidence, to have found in favour of the defendant.
 However he had the advantage, which we have not had, of seeing and
hearing the witnesses. His findings of fact, and the inferences which he
drew there from, are reasonable and are supported by evidence. In such
circumstances this Court will hesitate to go against the trial judge's
 We are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled, on the evidence
before him to find that the defendant struck the plaintiff a blow without
justification which resulted in the Calles fracture to her right forearm.
 For these reasons we stated that we did not wish to hear Mr. Khanna on
the question of liability. With regard to damages, Mr. Gautama submitted
that the amount of shs 24, 500/- general damages was manifestly excessive in
relation to this type of injury, and in the circumstances of this case.
 Dr Khanna contended that the plaintiff suffered a great deal of pain
and although she was hospitalised for about 14 days, the pain continued for
six months, and that there is still the danger of osteo-arthritis occurring.
 It is not necessary to repeat here the principles on which this Court
will intervene in the case of assessment of damages by a trial judge.
 It has not been shown to us that the assessment was based on any error
in principle or that it was so clearly erroneous that it should be
altered.We are satisfied that the damages awarded represent a reasonable
 As all the members of the Court were of the same opinion we dismissed