https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/195

Safaricom PLC v Iriaini Tea Factory Company Ltd (Civil Case E038 of 2026) [2026] SCC 195 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 195 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Murang'a Civil Case E038 of 2026 GK Waithira, SRM August 7, 2026 Between Safaricom PLC Claimant and Iriaini Tea Factory Company Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant herein has sued the respondent for compensation following a road traffic accident vide a statement of claim dated 5th May 2026. It claims that on 11th May 2023 at about 4:30 p.m., its driver was driving motor vehicle registration number KDH 216W along Gatanga/Gatunyu road at Dakim area within Murang’a county, when the respondent’s driver negligently controlled the respondent’s motor vehicle registration number KBP 943Q Toyota Van/Pickup causing it to violently ram into the claimant’s vehicle from the rear side, thereby causing extensive damage to the claimant’s vehicle. The claimant sought a sum of Kshs. 400,792.61 being repair costs of Kshs. 368,008.61 and tracing charges of Kshs. 32,784/=. 2.In its response dated 19th June 2026, the respondent denied the entire claim and averred in the alternative that if the accident had occurred as alleged, it had been caused by the claimant. 3.The parties opted to proceed by way of documents under Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act. The claimant relied on the statements of Daniel Kamau Kimani, its driver at the time and Vitalis Juma Masinde, the legal assistant at ICEA Lion General Insurance Company Limited and produced documents in support of its claim. For its part, the respondent relied on the statement of its driver, Francis Kahenya. Subsequently, the parties filed their written submissions which this court has duly considered. Issues 4.The two issues for determination in this case are the apportionment of liability and assessment of damages. A. Liability 5.Although the respondent denied the occurrence of the accident in its response, its driver, Francis Kahenya admitted the occurrence of the accident in his witness statement. This court also notes that the claimant produced a copy of the motor vehicle records for motor vehicle registration number KBP 943Q as well as a police abstract which confirmed, respectively, that the respondent owned the aforementioned vehicle which was involved in a road traffic accident with its motor vehicle registration number KDH 216W as claimed. 6.The claimant’s driver, Kamau, stated that he had slowed down due to traffic at the scene of the accident. The respondent’s driver failed to notice the vehicles ahead of him and violently struck the rear of his vehicle, causing the accident. For his part, the respondent’s driver, Kahenya, blamed the claimant’s driver for the accident. He stated that he had stopped suddenly ahead of him and although he applied emergency brakes and hooted, his vehicle skidded and collided into the rear of the claimant’s vehicle. 7.Having analyzed the foregoing facts, it is the considered view of this court that Kahenya bore a heavier burden of care to the claimant. He was driving behind the claimant’s vehicle and had an unobstructed view of its vehicle. Further, the accident occurred during the day when a driver’s vision is unhindered. A prudent driver is required to keep a reasonable distance from the vehicle travelling ahead of them, taking note of the speed of the vehicle and adjusting their speed accordingly. In the present case, Kahenya did not counter the Kamau’s assertion that there was traffic when the accident occurred. It is therefore the finding of this court that Kahenya caused the accident by driving negligently. He failed to keep a reasonable distance from the claimant’s vehicle despite the prevailing circumstances and wound up ramming into the claimant’s vehicle. Consequently, the respondent is found vicariously liable for its driver’s actions and liability entered wholly against it. B. Special Damages 8.The claimant averred that it incurred damages as a result of the accident for which it sought special damages. The claimant was required to strictly prove the claim for special damages as they cannot be inferred from the facts. (See Hahn V Singh [1985] KECA 129 (KLR) 9.The claimant averred that it had spent a total of Kshs. 368,008.61/= in repair costs. To support its claim for repair costs, the claimant produced a copy of an assessment report which put the repair costs at Kshs. 368,008.61/=, a service quotation for a sum of Kshs. 471,130.61 from the repairer, CFAO Motors Kenya Limited, a re inspection report computing the repair costs, a service tax invoice from the repairer and a payment voucher from the claimant’s insurer for a sum of Kshs. 368,008.61/=. 10.The respondent’s learned counsel submitted that a receipt is the only document that can prove payment but this court is satisfied with the documents produced by the claimant. The claimant has not only produced an invoice from the repairer but has also produced a payment voucher. Section 32 (2) of the Small Claims Court Act states that this court is not bound by strict rules of evidence. The Small Claims Court will admit into evidence what it deems credible and trustworthy. As the respondent has not raised an objection on the authenticity of the documents furnished by the claimant, this court will admit them as proof of special damages. 11.Accordingly, this court finds that the claimant has proved on a balance of probabilities that a sum of Kshs. 368,008.61/= was spent repairing the claimant’s vehicle. 12.The claimant also sought a sum of Kshs. 32,784/= in tracing charges. It produced a copy of an investigation report dated 19th November 2025 from Windscope Loss Assessors Ltd, a fee note for a sum of Kshs. 32,784/= from the assessors as well as a receipt and payment voucher for the amounts claimed. The claimant is therefore entitled to the sums sought in tracing fees. Conclusion 13.In the end, this court enters judgment in favor of the claimant for a sum of Kshs. 400,792.61/= made up as follows;a.Liability is entered wholly in favour of the claimant against the respondent;b.Special damages- Kshs. 400,792.61/= 14.The above award shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. 15.The claimant shall have the costs of this suit which this court assesses at Kshs. 40,000/=. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.HON. GRACE WAITHĨRASENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORJudgment sent via CTS platform in accordance with rule 23 (4) (b) of the small claims court rules.The execution of this judgment is stayed for 30 days.Any aggrieved party has leave to exercise their right of appeal within 30 days of the date hereof.Signed by/for:HON. GRACE WAITHIRAMURANGA SMALL CLAIMS COURT