Njoroge v Mwangangi (Civil Case E037 of 2026) [2026] SCC 175 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment)

Njoroge v Mwangangi (Civil Case E037 of 2026) [2026] SCC 175 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 175 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Murang'a Civil Case E037 of 2026 GK Waithira, SRM July 10, 2026 Between Francis Mwangi Njoroge Claimant and Mutati Mwangangi Respondent Judgment 1.On 6th February 2026, the claimant’s motor vehicle registration number KCR 827S was parked at the old Caltex garage in Murang’a town when, James Njagi Njeru, lost control of the respondent’s motor vehicle registration number KBD 475F and rammed into the claimant’s vehicle. In his statement of claim dated 8th May 2026, the claimant averred that he earned his livelihood from operating his vehicle as a public service vehicle. He therefore put the cumulative loss caused by the accident at a sum of Kshs. 991,350/= being the sum of assessment charges, towing charges, the pre-accident value of his vehicle, loss of income for the period before the vehicle was re-inspected and the sums spent in obtaining the copy of records. 2.To support his claim, the claimant furnished the court with copies of the police abstract, an assessment report, a certificate of insurance, a certificate of examination, a copy of log book, his identity card, a driver’s licence, a copy of the respondent’s motor vehicle records, copies of daily PSV worksheet and copies of receipts. 3.For his part, the respondent refuted the claim in a response dated 26th June 2026. His driver, James Njagi Njeru stated that he was driving the respondent’s vehicle from Kiria-ini towards Thika and was going down a slope within Murang’a town, when the vehicle’s brakes suddenly failed and he was unable to bring the vehicle to a stop or reduce its speed. As a result, the lorry he was driving hurtled down the slope and only came to a stop when it entered a garage premises along the road and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle which was in those premises. He averred that he had no ability to steer away or avoid the collision. His tout, Ezekiel Maluki, confirmed the driver’s account and added that James was driving the respondent’s vehicle at a normal and careful manner before the brakes failed. The respondent produced a service card which showed that the vehicle had been serviced on 30th January 2026 and was due for a subsequent service on 21st January 2026. Issues, Analysis and Determination 4.The parties to this suit opted to proceed by way of documents under Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act. This court has therefore considered the parties pleadings as well as their witness statements and documents. From the material placed before this court, the two issues arising for determination are the apportionment of liability and the assessment of damages. Liability 5.It is common ground that the respondent’s vehicle rammed into the claimant’s vehicle while it was parked in a garage. The claimant’s learned counsel submits that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant as his vehicle was stationary. The respondent’s counsel counters that the claimant’s vehicle was parked at the entry path of the garage without warning signs. The basis of this submissions is unclear as the respondent’s witnesses did not make such a claim. James Njagi and Ezekiel Maluki were adamant that the accident had been caused by a sudden failure in the brakes. They did not claim that they were attempting to gain entry into the garage when the accident occurred. On the contrary. They stated that the driver completely lost control of the vehicle and could not steer it once the brakes failed. The assertion that the claimant contributed to the occurrence of the accident by parking at the entrance of the garage has no basis. 6.As to the respondent’s assertion that the accident was as a result of an inevitable accident, it was submitted for the claimant that having admitted to colliding into a stationary vehicle, the respondent could not escape liability. However, in the case of Ann Mukami Muchiri v David Kariuki Mundia [2008] KEHC 1380 (KLR) the court held as follows on inevitable accidents;“How about inevitable accident? Once again this court can only go by the word of the respondent. The survivors of the crash would have beefed up this defence. I have already discounted the evidence of the respondent as self-serving. He was unable to demonstrate that the accident was as a result of some sudden and unforeseeable circumstances, so as to make the accident herein unavoidable or inevitable as he alleges. As correctly pointed out by Mr. Ngugi in his submissions, it was foreseeable that a serious accident was bound to occur when the respondent took the risk of driving a motor vehicle at night without any lighting system and wading through heaps of murram and or a rough road undergoing repairs. In those circumstances he was bound to run into stones, potholes or other objects resulting into a tyre burst. By failing to appreciate all these foreseeable dangers, the respondent undertook an obvious risk and therefore set upon himself a very high standard of duty of care to the passengers he was carrying, which duty he failed to discharge. Knowing the prevailing conditions of the road, the respondent went ahead to drive at a speed that was dangerous. The extensive damage to the subject motor vehicle is a testimony to the speed at which it was being driven. Further considering that the deceased passed on and the other occupants were seriously injured the impact must have been intense pointing once again to excessive speed. I am in total agreement with the sentiments expressed by the learned judges of appeal in the case of Hellen Mueni Mwathi v/s Julius Kiilu Sila & Another C.A. No. 352 of 2005 (Nyr) (unreported) when they said:“......... In those circumstances, we agree with Mr. Ochieng that whether the vehicle ran into a hippopotamus or into a tree did not really matter. The immediate and proximate cause of the accident was speed at which the 1st respondent drove his vehicle ..........”The same situation obtains here.” 7.In essence, a party who claims inevitable or unavoidable accident bears the burden of proving that the accident resulted from circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen or avoided by the exercise of ordinary care. The defence is unavailable to a party who voluntarily exposed others to foreseeable risks or where the evidence establishes that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was negeligence on the part of the respondent. 8.Applying the above principles to the instant case, this court finds that the respondent has discharged that burden. Save for the sudden failure of brakes, there was no evidence of any other immediate and proximate cause of the accident. Ezekiel Maluki stated that the respondent’s driver was travelling at a moderate speed at the material time. The respondent’s witnesses also stated that the brakes failed while the vehicle was descending a slope. In addition, the respondent produced the vehicle’s service records which demonstrated that the vehicle was well maintained and its braking fluid had recently changed. There was no evidence that the respondent’s driver assumed a heightened standard of duty when the accident occurred. In the absence of evidence of negligence, the court is satisfied that the respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the cause of the accident was inevitable. Accordingly, this court finds that the claimant did not prove any negligence on the part of the respondent. 9.In light of the foregoing analysis, the claimant’s suit stands dismissed. Considering the unfortunate circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of the suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026.HON. GRACE WAITHĨRASENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR