https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/355

Kariuki v Thuo & another (Civil Case 678 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 355 (KLR) (24 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 355 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Eldoret Law Courts Civil Case 678 of 2019 ME Aligula, RM July 24, 2026 Between John Kariuki Plaintiff and Daniel Mwangi Thuo 1st Defendant Nicholas Kiptarbei Simatei 2nd Defendant Judgment Introduction 1.The plaintiff moved this Honourable court vide plaint dated 15th August, 2020 seeking orders inter alia:a.General damagesb.Special damages.c.Costs of the suit plus interest 2.The plaint was accompanied with list of witnesses and documents all dated 15th August, 2019. 3.The defendants filed memorandum of appearance dated 24th September, 2019, amended statement of defence amended on 25th October, 2019. In the amended statement of defence they denied the claim and prayed that the suit be dismissed with Costs. Plaintiff’s Case. 4.The plaintiff in the plaint avers that on or about 24th October, 2018, he was in the course of his duty as a conductor aboard motor vehicle registration number KBH 875U Toyota Hiace Matatu along Kitale – Eldoret at Matunda bridge when motor vehicle registration number KAT 710L Isuzu Tanker which was being driven so carelessly ,negligently and recklessly, managed and or controlled the said motor vehicle thereby causing an accident as a consequence of which the plaintiff sustained severe injuries and sustained loss and damages. 5.Dr. Sokobe testified in Court as PW1 he produced the receipt for ksh 6,000/- as p exhibit 1, medical report as P exhibit 2, and P3 form P exhibit 3. In cross examination he confirmed that the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries. 6.The plaintiff testified in court as PW2 and adopted her statement dated 14th August, 2019, as evidence in chief, he produced documents on his list of documents dated 14th August 2019. Identification card P exhibit 4, Police abstract P exhibit 5, Treatment notes from matunda hospital P exhibit 6, Payment receipt P exhibit 7, Copy of M/V search P exhibit 8, Demand letter P exhibit 9, Statutory notice P exhibit 10 and Postage slip P exhibit No 11. The witness stated that he sustained injuries on his chest, head and right leg. In cross examination he confirmed that he has not healed well. The plaintiff closed its case and filed its submissions dated 23rd June, 2026. Defence Case. 7.The defendants denied the plaintiff’s claim through its amended defense denied the particulars of negligence and stated that if the accident occurred the same was caused by negligence on the part of the plaintiff. At paragraph 7 of the amended defence. The defendants denied the particulars of injuries and special damages and put the plaintiff to strict proof. 8.The defendants never called any witness and never produced any document in support of its defence. They proceeded to close their case and filed its submissions dated 26th June, 2026. Analysis and Determination. 9.Parties confirmed on 27th April, 2026, that judgment was delivered in the test suit Eldoret CMCC NO 220 OF 2019 in which the defendants were found 100% liable and prayed for the same to be adopted herein as such what is pending for determination before this court is a question of quantum and who is to bear the costs only. a.Quantum of Damages 10.In the case herein the plaintiff pleaded and the doctor through the medical report -PEX 2 and the P3 Form-PEX 3 proved that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were; blunt injury to the chest, blunt injury to the back, blunt injury to the upper limbs and blunt injury to both knees. 11.The doctors report, PEX 2 has classified the injuries suffered by the plaintiff as soft tissue injuries which the plaintiff was recovering well. The P3 form, PEX 3 classifies the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as harm. 12.Plaintiff’s evidence was not controverted and the court makes a finding that on balance of probability, the plaintiff proved that she sustained the injuries as captured in the medical report by Dr Sokobe. 13.This court is to determine what should be awarded to the plaintiff as general damages for the injuries sustained. In doing so, this court relies on settled guiding principles when awarding general damages. In the case, Simon Taveta V Mercy Mutitu Njeru [2014]eKLR the court held that:“The context in which the compensation for the respondent must be evaluated is determined by the nature and extent of injuries and comparable awards made in the past” 14.The court is invited to determine what would be reasonable compensation to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained. Being guided by the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable damages, this court refers to the decision in the case of Andembesa & Another V Gweno (2024) Eklr the court reduced an award of Ksh 1,200,000/= to Ksh 120,000/= in this case the respondent sustained soft tissue injuries to the head, back, chest, head, shoulders, elbow joints and knees. 15.In Jyoti Structures Limited & another v Truphena Chepkoech Too & another [2020] eKLR, the Court awarded Kshs. 125,000/- for blunt injuries to the head, neck, chest, back and both thighs. In Daniel Gatana Ndungu & another v Harrison Angore Katana [2020] KEHC 6806 (KLR), the respondent sustained a cut wound on the head, blunt injury to the right knee, multiple bruises on the upper limbs and bruises on the right knee. The court set aside the finding by the subordinate court that awarded Kshs 350,000/= on general damages and substituted it with an award of Kshs 140,000/=. 16.In Ochola v Owuor (Civil Appeal E039 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 7689 (KLR), the Court awarded Kshs. 150,000/- for soft tissue injuries of the right shoulder joint and both knee joints and blunt injuries to the anterior chest wall, the neck, and the back leading to soft tissue injuries. 17.In the case of Dennis Kipkirui Vs Stephen Omondi Oloo. (Civil Appeal E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8081 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Judgment) the High Court upheld an award of ksh 60,000/- where the plaintiff had sustained bruises on the knee, bruises on the lower limb and soft tissue injury on the ankle joint. The submissions by the plaintiff for ksh 450,000/- is very high for the injuries herein whereas the defendant’s submission for ksh 70,000/- is a little bit low and as such the court considers Ksh 100,000/= to be reasonable award for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. 18.As to special damages, it is settled law that they must be specifically pleaded and proved. In this case the plaintiff at paragraph 11 of the plaint pleaded special damages of Ksh 8400/= and went ahead to prove the special damages by producing PEX 1 and 7. The court makes a finding that the special damages proved is ksh 6,600/- and the plaintiff is awarded the same. b. Costs and Interests. 19.Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and case law, costs follow events unless the court has reason to depart from the same. This court has no valid reason to depart from this position and awards the plaintiff costs of the suit. 20.As to interest, section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act has given guidance on how interest should be awarded. Interest shall be awarded to the plaintiff as shall be specified in the final orders. Conclusion and Disposition 21.Consequently, the court makes a finding that the plaintiff has proved his case on balance of probability as against the defendants jointly and severally and enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the following terms;a.Liability 100% in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendantsb.General damages of KSH 100, 000/=c.Special damages of KSH 6,600/=d.Costs and interest to the plaintiffStay of 30 days granted. JUGMENT SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED IN ELDORET ON THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.M.E ALIGULARMBefore the C/A Mr LepatoiyeMS Kemboi for the plaintiffMs. Kemuma for the defendant