Shikuku v Hamon Engineering Ltd & another (Civil Suit 1286 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 210 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment)

Shikuku v Hamon Engineering Ltd & another (Civil Suit 1286 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 210 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment)

The Plaintiff’s evidence was uncontroverted and corroborated by the police abstract and medical records. The court held that the 2nd Defendant negligently caused the rear-end collision and that, on the evidence, he was driving as a servant or agent of the 1st Defendant, making both Defendants 100% liable. On...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEMC 210 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hesborn Ibrahim Shikuku; 1st Defendant: Hamon Engineering Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Adolphus Kiptanui
Court
Magistrate's Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 1286 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Personal Injuries Arising From Road Traffic Accident / Judgment After Formal Proof Following Interlocutory Judgment in Default of Appearance
Outcome
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally
Judges
["LA Mumassabba"]
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Negligence, Burden and Standard of Proof, Default Judgment, Formal Proof, General Damages, Special Damages, Vicarious Liability of Employer/owner, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
en
Tort Personal Injury Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Road Traffic Accident Negligence Burden and Standard of Proof Default Judgment +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hesborn Ibrahim Shikuku

Plaintiff

Hamon Engineering Ltd

1st Defendant

Adolphus Kiptanui

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Personal Injuries Arising From Road Traffic Accident / Judgment After Formal Proof Following Interlocutory Judgment in Default of Appearance

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants were liable for the accident and to what extent
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant was acting as servant or agent of the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 What quantum of general and special damages was payable

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff’s evidence was uncontroverted and corroborated by the police abstract and medical records. The court held that the 2nd Defendant negligently caused the rear-end collision and that, on the evidence, he was driving as a servant or agent of the 1st Defendant, making both Defendants 100% liable. On quantum, the court treated the injuries as soft tissue and blunt injuries without fracture or permanent disability, and held that Kshs. 350,000 was a fair award of general damages, with Kshs. 7,637 strictly proved as special damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally

Orders

  • General damages awarded: Kshs. 350,000.00
  • Special damages awarded: Kshs. 7,637.00