Mogo Auto Limited & another v Onsare (Civil Appeal E189 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 18507 (KLR) (16 December 2025) (Judgment)

Mogo Auto Limited & another v Onsare (Civil Appeal E189 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 18507 (KLR) (16 December 2025) (Judgment)

The appellants failed to adduce evidence to rebut the respondent's case on liability; the respondent was off the road and the only other person with knowledge (the driver) did not testify. The trial court's finding of 100% liability against the appellants was justified. Special damages and future medical expenses were properly pleaded and proved. The award for loss of earning capacity was not properly pleaded and was set aside and substituted with a lower sum based on minimum wage. The quantum of general damages was not inordinately high. Each party to bear its own costs as the appeal only succeeded on a minor issue.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 18507 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mogo Auto Ltd; Appellant: Nyamweya Abel Michira; Respondent: Evans Onsare
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 December 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E189 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partially allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damages, Liability, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Special Damages, Future Medical Expenses, Loss of Earning Capacity, Costs
Source Language
English
Tort Civil Procedure Negligence Damages Liability Contributory Negligence Quantum of Damages Special Damages +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mogo Auto Ltd

Appellant

Nyamweya Abel Michira

Appellant

Evans Onsare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants 100% liable for the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of damages awarded was excessive or justified.
  3. 3 Whether special damages, future medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity were properly pleaded and proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to adduce evidence to rebut the respondent's case on liability; the respondent was off the road and the only other person with knowledge (the driver) did not testify. The trial court's finding of 100% liability against the appellants was justified. Special damages and future medical expenses were properly pleaded and proved. The award for loss of earning capacity was not properly pleaded and was set aside and substituted with a lower sum based on minimum wage. The quantum of general damages was not inordinately high. Each party to bear its own costs as the appeal only succeeded on a minor issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal partially allowed

Orders

  • Appeal on liability, general damages, special damages, and future medical expenses dismissed.
  • Appeal on loss of earning capacity allowed; award of Ksh. 1,728,000 set aside and substituted with Ksh. 521,400.