https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/455

Omondi v Karanja (Civil Case E1420 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 455 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 455 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Mombasa Law Courts Civil Case E1420 of 2025 EM Mwamuye, SRM July 30, 2026 Between Godfrey Otieno Omondi Plaintiff and Humphrey Muriuki Karanja Defendant Judgment 1.By a plaint dated 29th August 2025, the Plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendant seeking:a.General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities;b.Special damages;c.Costs of the suit; andd.Interest. 2.The claim arises from a road traffic accident which occurred on 7th June 2025 at about 6.45 p.m. along the Likoni–Ukunda Road, at the Checkpoint area. The Plaintiff’s case was that he was lawfully travelling as a passenger aboard motor vehicle registration number KBB 284P, Nissan Matatu, from Likoni Ferry towards Ukunda. Upon reaching the Checkpoint area, the vehicle was allegedly driven so negligently that its driver lost control and caused it to collide with a pole on the left side of the road. The Plaintiff consequently sustained bodily injuries. 3.The Defendant was duly served with the pleadings but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence. Interlocutory judgment was subsequently entered against him on 12th February 2026. The matter thereafter proceeded to formal proof. The Plaintiff’s Evidence 4.The Plaintiff testified as PW1. He adopted his witness statement as his evidence-in-chief and produced the documents contained in his list and bundle of documents. 5.He testified that he was a passenger in motor vehicle registration number KBB 284P when its driver lost control and collided with a roadside pole. He blamed the occurrence of the accident entirely on the manner in which the vehicle was driven. 6.The Plaintiff stated that he sustained the following injuries:a.A cut wound on the scalp;b.Two cut wounds on the right hand;c.A bruise or abrasion on the left shoulder;d.A bruise or abrasion on the left arm and forearm;e.Two cut wounds on the left thumb and third finger;f.A laceration on the left leg; andg.A bruise on the right leg. 7.He was initially treated at Diani Beach Hospital and subsequently attended Aga Khan Hospital for further treatment. He also produced a police abstract, medical records, a medical report, radiological reports, a copy of records from the National Transport and Safety Authority and receipts. The Plaintiff’s evidence was not challenged by cross-examination and no contrary evidence was tendered by the Defendant. Plaintiff’s Submissions 8.Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff’s evidence had proved the claim on a balance of probabilities and urged the Court to hold the Defendant wholly liable for the accident. 9.On quantum, counsel proposed an award of Kshs. 500,000 as general damages. The Plaintiff further prayed for special damages of Kshs. 2,550, comprising Kshs. 2,000 for the medical report and Kshs. 550 for the motor vehicle search. Issues for Determination 10.Having considered the pleadings, evidence, documents and submissions, the issues arising for determination are:i.Whether the Defendant is liable for the accident;ii.What amount, if any, should be awarded as general damages;iii.Whether the claim for special damages was proved; andiv.Who should bear the costs of the suit. Liability 11.The burden of proof remained upon the Plaintiff notwithstanding the absence of a defence. The Plaintiff was required to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. The interlocutory judgment did not dispense with the need to prove the occurrence of the accident, causation and the injuries sustained. 12.The Plaintiff testified that he was a passenger in motor vehicle registration number KBB 284P. As a passenger, he had no control over the manner in which the vehicle was driven. 13.The Plaintiff’s account was that the vehicle lost control and struck a pole on the left side of the road. In the ordinary course of events, a properly driven and controlled motor vehicle does not leave its proper course and collide with a stationary roadside object in the absence of negligence or some explanation consistent with the exercise of reasonable care. 14.The Plaintiff expressly pleaded and relied upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. He also particularised the Defendant’s negligence as including driving at an excessive speed, failing to maintain proper control, driving without due care and attention and failing to stop, slow down or otherwise manage the vehicle so as to avoid the accident. 15.The Defendant did not offer any explanation as to how the vehicle lost control. He did not call the driver or any other witness to rebut the Plaintiff’s account. 16.The motor vehicle copy of records identified the Defendant as the registered owner of motor vehicle registration number KBB 284P. The Defendant did not rebut the presumption of ownership or dispute that the vehicle was being driven by his authorised driver, servant or agent. 17.I am satisfied that the Plaintiff proved that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving, management or control of motor vehicle registration number KBB 284P. I therefore find the Defendant 100% liable for the accident. General Damages 18.The object of an award of general damages is to provide reasonable compensation for the pain, suffering and loss of amenities occasioned by the injuries. Comparable injuries should, as far as practicable, attract comparable awards. The Court must nevertheless take account of the particular injuries, treatment, residual symptoms, prognosis and the passage of time since the comparable awards were made. 19.The contemporaneous treatment records from Diani Beach Hospital confirmed multiple cut wounds and lacerations involving the scalp, hands and fingers. The Plaintiff underwent suturing and dressing. Radiological investigations, including a head CT scan, did not disclose a fracture or intracranial injury. 20.The Aga Khan Hospital records indicate that the Plaintiff required further management of the injuries to his hand, including exploration and repair of an extensor tendon injury. This demonstrates that the injuries were not confined to superficial bruising alone. Nevertheless, the pleaded injuries did not include any fracture, dislocation, head injury, internal injury or permanent incapacity. 21.The medical examination report prepared by Dr. Darius Wambua Kiema recorded scars corresponding with the cut wounds, lacerations and bruises. The doctor classified the injuries as soft-tissue injuries and stated that they were expected to heal without permanent disability or incapacity. A review was recommended after sufficient healing to determine whether there was any residual stiffness of the left third finger or thumb. 22.No subsequent medical report was produced showing permanent incapacity, continuing loss of function or a percentage assessment of permanent disability. Comparison with the Authorities Relied Upon 23.In Manthi v Makokha [2025] KEHC 16469 (KLR), the claimant sustained a degloving injury to the right leg and bruises to the left leg. The medical evidence confirmed degloving scars on the upper and lower right leg. The High Court ultimately substituted the trial court’s award of Kshs. 800,000 with an award of Kshs. 450,000. A degloving injury ordinarily involves a more extensive separation of skin and soft tissue than the cut wounds, abrasions and lacerations pleaded in the present case. The injuries in Manthi v Makokha were therefore, in overall severity, more serious than those sustained by the Plaintiff herein. The award of Kshs. 450,000 cannot simply be adopted without making an appropriate downward adjustment. In reaching its decision in Manthi v Makokha, the High Court reviewed earlier decisions involving degloving injuries, fractures, lacerations and soft-tissue injuries, in which awards ranged between Kshs. 200,000 and Kshs. 400,000. 24.In Asino & another v Nyakundi [2026] KEHC 1750 (KLR), the claimant sustained bruises on both legs and blunt trauma to both knees. The injuries were described as soft-tissue injuries which were healing and had not resulted in permanent incapacity. The High Court reduced the general damages from Kshs. 300,000 to Kshs. 200,000. The Plaintiff’s submissions state that the Court in Asino & another v Nyakundi awarded Kshs. 300,000. That is not the ultimate award made on appeal. The High Court expressly set aside the award of Kshs. 300,000 and substituted it with an award of Kshs. 200,000. The injuries in Asino & another v Nyakundi were less extensive than those in the present case. The claimant in that authority suffered bruises and blunt trauma, whereas the present Plaintiff sustained multiple cut wounds and lacerations over several parts of the body, underwent suturing and further treatment for an injury to his hand. 25.The present injuries therefore fall between the injuries in Asino & another v Nyakundi and those in Manthi v Makokha. They were more extensive than the uncomplicated bruises and blunt trauma in Asino, but less severe than the degloving injury in Manthi. 26.I have also considered that: The injuries affected several parts of the Plaintiff’s body; The wounds required suturing and dressing; The Plaintiff required further hospital management of the hand injury; The injuries left visible scars; There was no fracture or dislocation; The head CT scan was normal; and no permanent incapacity was established. 27.The proposal of Kshs. 500,000 is, in my assessment, on the higher side when measured against the nature of the injuries and the prognosis. Such an award would place the Plaintiff at or above the level of compensation made for substantially more serious degloving injuries. 28.Taking into account the comparable authorities, the multiple sites of injury, the treatment undertaken, the absence of fractures and the favourable prognosis, I find that an award of Kshs. 300,000 constitutes fair and reasonable compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. Special Damages 29.Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The Plaintiff specifically pleaded:a.Medical report fee — Kshs. 2,000; andb.Motor vehicle search fee — Kshs. 550.The total amount pleaded was Kshs. 2,550. 30.The Plaintiff produced receipts supporting the medical report fee and the motor vehicle search fee. I am satisfied that the sum of Kshs. 2,550 was both pleaded and proved. 31.Although counsel’s submissions referred to treatment expenses of Kshs. 24,150, those expenses were not included in the special damages pleaded in the plaint. Submissions cannot amend pleadings or introduce a substantive monetary claim which was not pleaded. The Court therefore cannot award the unpleaded treatment expenses. I accordingly award the Plaintiff Kshs. 2,550 as special damages. Disposition 32.Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant as follows:a.General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities Kshs. 300,000b.Special damages Kshs. 2,550Total Kshs. 302,550c.The Plaintiff shall have the costs of the suit.d.Interest on general damages shall accrue at court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full.e.Interest on special damages shall accrue at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS 30TH JULY 2026.............................................EMILY M. MWAMUYESENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE