https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/196

Koimett v Nganga (Civil Case 1102 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 196 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 196 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Nakuru Law Courts Civil Case 1102 of 2021 PA Ndege, SPM June 25, 2026 Between Roy Kemboi Koimett Plaintiff and John Mwangi Nganga Defendant Judgment 1.On 13/10/2021, the Plaintiff herein, Roy Kemboi Koimet, filed this suit against the Defendant, John Mwangi Nganga, seeking general and special damages for injuries and related expense he suffered and/or incurred out of a road traffic accident involving Motor Vehicle Registration Number KBV 785W Toyota Matatu, wherein he was travelling as a lawful passenger; and the Defendant’s vehicle. On 29/10/2021, the Defendant/ Applicant filed his Statement of Defence dated 26/10/2021, in which he denied the plaintiff’s claim. 2.2 other passengers who were in the Toyota Matatu, being Fredrick Chepkonga Ngetich and Kelvin Kiprotich Kibet, filed separate suits with similar claims against the Defendant for the same accident, but different injuries. The Defendant also filed his Statements of Defence to the claims in their respective files. 3.During one of the pre-trials on 28/02/2022, Mr. Maiyo was present for the Plaintiff/ Respondent, while Mr. Munyori appeared for the Defendant/ Applicant. Mr. Munyori then addressed the court that they had agreed that this file be made the lead or test suit, mainly for purposes of liability. Hearing therefore proceeded in this file as file No. CC1101/2021 where Kelvin Kiprotich Kibet is the plaintiff, and the other file, CC 613/2021 where Fredrick Chepkonga Ngetich is the Plaintiff, were stayed, awaiting the determination of the issue of liability in this lead or test suit. The trial in this test suit therefore proceeded and the finding on liability in this file shall therefore apply to the other 2 files as directed in my ruling dated 28/01/2025. 4.2 witnesses testified before Hon. Khatambi, PM, as she then was. I took over this matter while it was at the defence stage. The defendant however proceeded to close his case without calling any witness. The evidence of the 2 witnesses was however subjected to cross-examination. 5.PW1, was the plaintiff herein. he stated that he was a passenger in the matatu KBV 785W, which had stopped at a stage at Baikerra. That the vehicle was at that point by the defendant’s motor vehicle KAX 085U. That he then sustained the injures as listed in the plaint herein. 6.The next witness was a police officer PW2, No. 88010 PC Obadia Aroni from Menengai Police Station. she stated that the records with them confirms that a mechanic was driving KAX 085V vehicle from Kanuru towards Ravine directions. That he caused the accident herein when he rammed the vehicle into the left side of KBV 789W matatu which was then stationery. That the plaintiff herein was a passenger in the matatu vehicle and was injured as a result of the accident. That investigations concluded that the vehicle KAX 083U was to be blamed for the accident. She produced the police abstract as PEXH. No. 1. 7.In cross-examination, the officer confirmed that she was not the investigating officer. That no traffic charges were preferred against the driver of the KAX vehicle. She produced no sketch map and that she could not therefore demonstrate how the accident herein occurred. 8.Parties have filed their respective submissions and the first issue is that of liability. I do agree with the learned counsel for the plaintiff’s submissions that the plaintiff was a mere passenger in the matatu vehicle herein and cannot therefore be found liable as he had no control of either of the vehicle involved in the accident herein. There was no evidence tendered by the defendant to controvert this fact and as such I find the defendant herein 100% liable. He is the one who was sued, and he did not take any third-party notice on any other person, including the driver of the matatu in which the plaintiff was travelling in. He must therefore shoulder the blame in this suit single-handedly. 9.On quantum, I find that the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to the face and both legs. I have considered the authorities and proposals by both counsel herein. Noting that no injuries are similar or exactly the same, I do hereby take a middle ground, factoring inflation, and award the plaintiff herein Kshs. 300,000/- in general damages for pain and suffering. As relates to special damages, I find that the plaintiff has only been able to prove the costs of medical report and the motor vehicle search and do therefore award him Kshs. 15, 550/- as special damages. 10.The upshot is that judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff, against the defendant at a sum of Kshs. 315,550/-, having found the defendant to be 100% liable. The plaintiff also gets the costs of the suit and interest on all the awards herein at court rates. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU IN OPEN COURT THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGESENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATEIn the presence of;Plaintiff’s Counsel: N/ADefendant’s Counsel: MwendaMwenda; Praying for 45 days stay.CT: 45 days stay granted.Plaintiff:Defendant: