https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6515

Kamau v Orangi (Civil Appeal E816 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 6515 (KLR) (11 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6515 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Civil Appeal E816 of 2024 FR Olel, J May 11, 2026 Between John Mbiri Kamau Appellant and Kennedy Gichaba Orangi Respondent (Being An Appeal From The Judgment/ Decree Of Hon J.w. Munene, Resident Magistrate/adjudicator Delivered On 28Th June 2024 In Nairobi Milimani Sccc No E4270 Of 2023) Judgment A. Introduction 1.This Appeal challenges the Judgment/decree of Hon J.W Munene, Resident Magistrate/Adjudictor dated 28th June 2024, delivered in Milimani Small claims court in SCCC No 4270 of 2023, where she awarded the respondent general damages of Kshs.500,000/= for the injuries sustain in a road traffic accident and special damages of Kshs.19,050/= plus costs and interest at court rates. 2.The background hereto was that the respondent filed his statement of claim dated 29th April 2023 against the respondent wherein he averred that on or about the 6th August 2022 he was standing off outer-ring road at a Matatu stage next to GSU headquarters when the appellants motor vehicle registration Number KAE 375T ISUZU LORRY (FH) was carelessly, negligently and/or recklessly driven by the appellants driver, servant and/or agent that he caused the same to veer off the road and violently knocked him down, causing him to suffer serious bodily injuries, loss and damage. He therefore claimed compensation for the same. 3.In response, the Appellant did file his amended statement of defence dated 19th October 2023 where he denied all the averments made by the respondent and put him to strict proof thereof. In the alternative, if indeed an accident did occur, then the respondent too was partial blame for the same due to his negligence, recklessness and lack of caution. 4.Further the appellant averred that based on investigation carried out by their insurer, Kenya Alliance Insurance Company it had been established that this claim was false since the respondent’s claim supporting documents were all forgeries and the purported victim (respondent) was an impersonator and had not been involved in the said accident. The cause of action therefore was misconceived, and no legal consequence could arise from the same. He thus requested that the suit be dismissed in its entirety with costs. 5.At the hearing of the said suit the parties counsels informed the learned trial Magistrate that liability had been determined in Milimani SCCC No 4496 of 2023 and consented to proceeding by way of documentation under Section 30 of the small claims Act to establish quantum awardable. The learned trial Magistrate considered the same and awarded the respondent General damages of Ksh.500,000/= , Special damages of Kshs.19,050/= plus costs and interest at court rates. B. The Appeal 6.The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the said Judgment, raised four (4) grounds of appeal, namely: -a.That the learned Adjudicator erred in law by making an award against the Appellant which failed to follow the established principles related to the law of negligence and fraud and the legal standards required to prove claims associated with the two principles respectively.b.That the learned Adjudicator considered matters she ought not to have considered and that the learned Adjudicator failed to consider matters she should have considered at arriving at her final judgment.c.That looking at the proceedings and evidence as a whole the learned Adjudicator was plainly wrong in her final decision and orders and no reasonable court or tribunal properly directing itself on the law would have arrived at a similar finding/judgment.d.That the learned Adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the Appellants final submissions on the law and thereafter proceeded to make a determination on the case based on a consideration of irrelevant factors and failing to consider relevant factors that would have aided in the just determination of the case 7.The Appellant thus prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the trial court be set aside and the respondents claim be dismissed with costs. He also urged the court to award him the costs of this Appeal C. Analysis And Determination 8.I have considered the entire record of Appeal and pleadings filed, the grounds of appeal raised, the submissions filed by the Appellant, and the cited authorities. This being an appeal from the Small Claims Court, it is important to point out that Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act provides that appeals from the said court shall be only on issues of law. An appeal limited to matters of law does not permit the appellate court to substitute the tribunal's decision with its own conclusions based on its own analysis and appreciation of the facts. See John Munuve Mati Vr The returning officer, Mwingi North Constituency & 2 others (2018) eKLR & Charles Kipkoech Leting Vs Express (K) Ltd & Another NKU CA Civil Appeal No 40 of 2016 (2018) eKLR 9.The parties herein did adopt the award on liability as determined in the sister file Milimani Small Claims Court SCCC No 4496 of 2023 and allowed the trial magistrate to proceed to determine the question of quantum awardable based on the documentation filed. Evidently it was at this point that the appellant shot himself in the foot as the respondent was not called to testify and be cross examined on the veracity of the claim supporting documents. There is therefore no basis upon which this court can be called to reconsider the same. The evidence used to determine liability of the claimant in Millimani SCCC No 4496 of 2023 too, was irrelevant in Milimani SCCC No 4270 of 2024 and had no bearing on quantum awardable in the latter suit. C. Disposition 12.I do therefore find and hold that this Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Kshs.100,000/= all inclusive. 13.Stay of execution 45 days. 14.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2026.FRANCIS RAYOLA OLELJUDGEDelivered on the virtual platform, Team this 11th day of May 2026.In the presence of: -……………………N/A……………………………..Appellant………………………N/A…………………………. Respondent………………………JARSO……………………….Court Assistant