https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/453

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA** **MAGISTRATE COURT CIVIL** **CIVIL CASE NO. E1669 OF 2024** **VASANI BHANUBEN VALLABHDAS (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of VALLABH NAGJI VASAUMIYA (Deceased)..................................................PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **EDGAR EREDI MUYESU..........................................................................DEFENDANT** **JUDGMENT** **Background** 1. The Plaintiff instituted this suit as the legal representative of the Estate of the late Vallabh Nagji Vasaumiya, seeking damages under the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act following a fatal road traffic accident which occurred on 8th August 2024 along Koinange Road near Savannah Vintage Lounge, Mombasa. 2. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant negligently drove Motor Vehicle Registration Number KCM 742V Toyota Prius, causing it to strike the deceased who was walking along the pedestrian walkway, thereby occasioning fatal injuries from which he later died at Pandya Memorial Hospital. 3. The Defendant denied liability and maintained that the Plaintiff failed to prove negligence. Alternatively, the Defendant pleaded that if an accident occurred as alleged, then the deceased substantially contributed to its occurrence. 4. The matter proceeded to hearing on 29th October 2025, 23rd April 2026, and 21st May 2026. The Plaintiff called six witnesses, while the Defendant testified as the sole defence witness. Upon close of the respective cases, parties filed written submissions which this Court has carefully considered alongside the pleadings and evidence on record. **The Pleadings** 1. By a Plaint dated 30th September 2024, the Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant was the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KCM 742V Toyota Prius. 2. It was pleaded that on 8th August 2024, at approximately 5.48 a.m., the deceased was lawfully walking on the left side of Koinange Road near Savannah Vintage Lounge when the Defendant negligently drove his motor vehicle, lost control after hitting an unmarked road bump, veered onto the pedestrian pathway and knocked down the deceased from behind. 3. The Plaintiff attributed negligence to the Defendant, including driving at excessive speed, failing to maintain proper control of the motor vehicle, failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to brake or swerve in time, failing to observe the road ahead and failing to exercise reasonable care towards pedestrians. 4. The Plaintiff pleaded that the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died shortly thereafter at Pandya Memorial Hospital. 5. The Plaintiff sought: 6. General damages under the Fatal Accidents Act; 7. General damages under the Law Reform Act; 8. Special damages amounting to KShs.359,376/=; 9. Costs of the suit; 10. Interest; and 11. Any other relief the Court deemed fit. 12. The Defendant filed a Statement of Defence dated 18th February 2025 admitting ownership of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KCM 742V, but denying negligence. 13. The Defendant denied that the deceased was walking as alleged and denied the particulars of negligence contained in the Plaint. 14. In the alternative, the Defendant pleaded that if an accident occurred, then it was wholly or substantially caused by the negligence of the deceased, whose particulars included: crossing or walking at an unauthorized place; failing to ensure that it was safe before crossing; failing to keep a proper lookout; and exposing himself to obvious danger. 15. The Defendant prayed for dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit with costs. The Plaintiff thereafter filed a Reply to Defence joining issue with the Defendant and putting him to strict proof of all the allegations contained in the Defence. **Evidence** Plaintiff's Case 1. PW1 – Police Officer- PW1 testified on behalf of Makupa Police Station. Although he was not the investigating officer, he informed the Court that he was conversant with the police file as the investigating officer had since been transferred. PW1 stated that the accident occurred on 8th August 2024 at around 5.50 a.m. and involved Motor Vehicle Registration Number KCM 742V Toyota Prius and the deceased. According to the police investigations, both the deceased and the Defendant's motor vehicle were travelling in the same direction towards Ronald Ngala Road, with the deceased walking ahead of the vehicle. PW1 testified that visibility was clear and that the deceased was dressed entirely in white clothing. He stated that the Defendant drove at a high speed, struck an unmarked road bump, lost control of the motor vehicle, veered to the left and knocked down the deceased. He further testified that members of the public assisted in placing the deceased into the Defendant's vehicle before he was rushed to Pandya Memorial Hospital where he later succumbed to his injuries. PW1 rejected the suggestion that the deceased had been crossing the road. He testified that police investigations established that the deceased had been walking on the pedestrian pathway adjacent to the road and that the Defendant veered into him. PW1 further testified that the Defendant was charged with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving and confirmed that before an accused person enters a plea, the charge together with its particulars are read out in full. 2. PW2 – Vasani Bhanuben Vallabhdas- PW2, the widow of the deceased, testified that on the material morning her husband had left home for his routine morning walk. She later received information that he had been involved in a road traffic accident and rushed to Pandya Memorial Hospital where he had been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries later that day. PW2 testified that they had been married for 44 years and were blessed with two children. Following the death of her husband, she could no longer continue living alone in Mombasa and her adult children relocated her to Australia. She described the deceased as a healthy man who exercised regularly, took morning walks daily and was not suffering from any illness. She testified that he worked for Corrugated Sheets Limited while she remained a housewife and depended upon him financially. 3. PW3 – Human Resource Manager- PW3 was the Human Resource Manager of Corrugated Sheets Limited. He confirmed that the deceased had worked for the company for over twenty years. He testified that the company had no mandatory retirement age and that employees continued working for as long as they remained medically fit and desired to continue in employment. PW3 informed the Court that he himself remained in employment despite being over eighty years old. He therefore stated that had it not been for the accident, the deceased would likely have continued working for many more years. 4. PW4 – Director- PW4, a Director of Corrugated Sheets Limited, confirmed that the deceased commenced employment in 1998. He stated that the deceased was earning a gross monthly salary of KShs.219,668/=. PW4 reiterated that the company had no retirement policy and employees retired only when health no longer permitted continued employment or upon voluntary retirement. 5. PW5 – Private Investigator- PW5, a private investigator from Frenix Investigations, testified that he had been instructed by the insurer to investigate the accident. He visited the scene approximately fourteen days after the accident, interviewed police officers and eyewitnesses and prepared an investigation report. PW5 concluded that the deceased was not crossing the road at the time of the accident. According to his investigations, the deceased was walking on the pedestrian pathway while both he and the Defendant's motor vehicle travelled in the same direction. PW5 further concluded that the Defendant struck an unmarked road bump at high speed, lost control of the vehicle and veered onto the pedestrian pathway where he knocked down the deceased from behind. He testified that visibility was good and that the deceased, who was dressed entirely in white clothing, ought to have been visible to the Defendant.PW5 attributed the accident entirely to the Defendant. 6. PW6 – Julius Kamau- PW6 testified that he had known the deceased for many years. On the morning of the accident, the deceased greeted him as he normally did during his routine morning walks. Approximately one minute later PW6 heard a loud bang and rushed towards the scene. He found the deceased lying between the road and the pavement bleeding heavily. He testified that the Defendant's motor vehicle had partly mounted the pavement. PW6 maintained throughout cross-examination that the deceased was not crossing the road and had never known him to cross the road during his morning walks. 7. He further testified that the deceased was dressed entirely in white clothing and that no screeching brakes were heard before the collision. **Defence Case** 1. The defence case was heard on 21st May 2026. The Defendant testified as DW1, the sole defence witness. DW1 confirmed that he was the registered owner and driver of Motor Vehicle Registration Number KCM 742V Toyota Prius. He testified that on 8th August 2024 at approximately 5.30 a.m., he was driving from the Mombasa County Stadium area towards Ronald Ngala Road at about 50 kilometres per hour. He stated that because of low light conditions he did not observe an unmarked road bump until he encountered it. 2. According to DW1, after crossing the bump the deceased suddenly stepped onto the roadway from the passenger's side. He immediately applied emergency brakes and attempted to swerve but was unable to avoid the collision. 3. DW1 stated that he stopped immediately after the accident, sought assistance from members of the public and personally rushed the deceased to Pandya Memorial Hospital. He accompanied police officers to Makupa Police Station where he later learnt that the deceased had died. 4. DW1 acknowledged that he pleaded guilty to the traffic offence arising from the accident but explained that he did so because he felt remorse following the tragic death of the deceased. **Issues for Determination** 1. Having carefully considered the pleadings, oral evidence, documentary evidence and submissions filed by the parties, the issues arising for determination are: 2. Whether the Plaintiff has proved negligence against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities. 3. Whether the deceased contributed to the occurrence of the accident and, if so, to what extent. 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages under the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act. 5. What orders should issue. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** **Whether the Plaintiff has proved negligence against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities** 1. The law is settled that he who alleges must prove. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act place the legal burden upon the Plaintiff to establish negligence on a balance of probabilities. It is therefore incumbent upon the Plaintiff to demonstrate that the Defendant owed the deceased a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the injuries that resulted in the deceased's death. 2. It is common ground that on 8th August 2024, a road traffic accident occurred involving the Defendant's motor vehicle Registration Number KCM 742V Toyota Prius and the deceased, Vallabh Nagji Vasaumiya. It is equally not disputed that the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained in that accident while undergoing treatment at Pandya Memorial Hospital. The dispute before this Court concerns only the manner in which the accident occurred and whether the Defendant was negligent. 3. The Plaintiff's case is that the deceased was walking on the left pedestrian pathway in the same direction as the Defendant's vehicle when the Defendant drove at excessive speed, struck an unmarked road bump, lost control of his motor vehicle, veered off the carriageway and struck the deceased from behind. 4. The Defendant, on the other hand, maintains that after crossing the road bump, the deceased suddenly entered the roadway from the Defendant's passenger side, leaving insufficient time to avoid the collision. 5. The Court must therefore evaluate the entire body of evidence to determine which version is more probable. Evaluation of PW1’s Evidence 1. The Defendant submitted that PW1's evidence should be disregarded because he was not the investigating officer. Reliance was placed on Kasaam Hauliers Limited & Another v Shreeji Enterprises [2025] KEHC 12039 (KLR) and Dikir & Another v Kimary [2022] KEHC 12733 (KLR), where the courts observed that a police officer who neither investigated the accident nor visited the scene cannot conclusively prove the circumstances under which the accident occurred merely by producing a police abstract. 2. I respectfully agree with that legal proposition. Indeed, PW1 candidly admitted that he was not the investigating officer. His testimony regarding the actual occurrence of the accident was derived from the police file. Standing alone, such evidence would carry limited probative value regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident. 3. However, unlike the authorities cited by the Defendant, the present case does not rest solely upon PW1's testimony. His evidence is corroborated by independent evidence from other witnesses, documentary evidence and admissions made by the Defendant himself. 4. Accordingly, although I attach limited weight to PW1's narration of the mechanics of the accident, I do not disregard his evidence entirely. His testimony remains relevant in establishing the investigations undertaken, the charge preferred against the Defendant, and the subsequent criminal proceedings. Whether there was an Eye Witness 1. The Defendant repeatedly submitted that there was no eyewitness to the accident. That submission is only partially correct. PW6 candidly admitted that he did not see the precise moment of impact. He had greeted the deceased approximately one minute before hearing the impact. Consequently, PW6 cannot testify with certainty regarding the precise point of collision. Similarly, PW5 reconstructed the accident after visiting the scene and interviewing witnesses. His evidence regarding the actual impact was therefore inferential. 2. Nevertheless, the absence of a witness observing the exact moment of impact is not fatal where the surrounding circumstances, physical evidence and admissions by the parties lead the Court to only one reasonable inference. Civil liability is determined on a balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Evaluation of PW5's Investigation Report 1. PW5 conducted investigations approximately fourteen days after the accident. The Defendant urged the Court to reject his conclusions because they were reconstructed from witness interviews and because one witness, Salim, did not testify. It is true that PW5 was not an eyewitness. His report therefore cannot replace direct evidence. 2. However, the Court notes that PW5 did not merely rely upon verbal accounts. He visited the accident scene, considered the physical layout of the road, interviewed witnesses, consulted police records and reached conclusions consistent with the available objective evidence. More importantly, his findings correspond substantially with: the testimony of PW1; the testimony of PW6; the Defendant's own admission that he encountered an unmarked road bump immediately before the collision; and the charge sheet in the criminal proceedings. 3. Accordingly, although the investigation report is not conclusive proof, it provides persuasive corroborative evidence consistent with the totality of the evidence before Court. The Defendant's Own Evidence 1. It is the Court’s view, that the Defendant's own testimony presents significant inconsistencies. First, the Defendant admitted that he encountered an unmarked road bump immediately before the collision. Second, he admitted travelling at approximately 50 kilometres per hour. Third, he stated that he only saw the pedestrian after crossing the bump. Fourth, he maintained that the deceased suddenly stepped into his path from the passenger side. The Court finds this version difficult to reconcile with the surrounding evidence. 2. If, indeed, the deceased had crossed almost the entire width of the road from the Defendant's right to left, as suggested in evidence, he would necessarily have remained visible for several seconds on a straight stretch of road. 3. Equally significant is the Defendant's own evidence that the collision occurred immediately after crossing the road bump. This admission tends to support the Plaintiff's theory that the Defendant's loss of control occurred immediately after negotiating the bump. The Defendant also admitted familiarity with the road. A driver familiar with a particular road owes an even greater duty to anticipate ordinary road conditions and to drive at a speed permitting proper control of the vehicle. The Effect of the Defendant's Guilty Plea 1. A central issue in this matter concerns the Defendant's plea of guilty in Traffic Case No. E3382 of 2024 for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. PW1 testified that before an accused person enters a plea, the charge together with its particulars is read out in full. The Plaintiff produced evidence that the charge particularized that the Defendant: drove dangerously; failed to observe proper road clearance; knocked down the deceased from behind; while the deceased was walking on the left side of the road. 2. The Defendant acknowledged entering a guilty plea but explained that he did so merely because he felt remorse. I am unable to accept that explanation. 3. A plea of guilty is not entered out of sympathy. Before accepting such plea, the criminal court is obliged to explain the charge and require the accused to admit every essential ingredient of the offence. If any material fact is disputed, the plea cannot properly be entered as one of guilty. 4. While I agree with the Defendant that a criminal conviction does not automatically determine civil liability, it remains highly persuasive evidence. It constitutes an admission against interest and is a factor this Court is entitled to consider together with all the surrounding evidence. 5. The Defendant's attempt in these proceedings to advance a materially different factual account from the facts admitted in the traffic proceedings substantially weakens his credibility. Whether the Unmarked Road Bump Exonerates the Defendant 1. The Defendant submitted that the unmarked road bump constituted an independent intervening cause. I am unable to agree. The existence of an unmarked bump does not relieve a driver of the obligation to maintain proper control of his vehicle. Indeed, the Defendant himself testified that he drove over the bump before the collision. The evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6 consistently points to the Defendant losing control after negotiating the bump. 2. The very fact that striking the bump caused the vehicle to veer from its intended path suggests that the Defendant was travelling at a speed which did not permit him to maintain effective control. 3. A prudent driver approaching unfamiliar or low-light road conditions is expected to regulate speed to account for foreseeable road hazards. The bump therefore explains how control was lost; it does not excuse the loss of control. Whether Contributory Negligence was Established 1. The Defendant pleaded contributory negligence and bore the evidential burden of proving the deceased's negligence. Apart from his own assertion that the deceased suddenly entered the roadway, no evidence supports that allegation. PW6 consistently maintained that the deceased habitually walked off the road and never crossed during his morning walks. PW5 reached the same conclusion following his investigations. PW1 similarly testified that police investigations established that the deceased was walking on the pedestrian pathway. 2. The Defendant called no independent witness. No sketch plan. No scene reconstruction. No passenger. No expert evidence. Consequently, the allegation that the deceased suddenly crossed the road remains unsupported. 3. The Defendant relied upon Lakhamshi v Attorney General (1971) to urge equal apportionment where blame cannot be determined. That authority is distinguishable. In Lakhamshi, the Court was confronted with competing versions unsupported by sufficient evidence to identify the party responsible. The present case is materially different. Here, there exists: the Defendant's guilty plea; consistent evidence from several Plaintiff's witnesses; corroborative investigation findings; the Defendant's own admission regarding the road bump; and no objective evidence supporting contributory negligence. Accordingly, this is not a case where responsibility cannot be determined. 4. Having carefully evaluated the evidence in its entirety, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant failed to maintain proper control of his motor vehicle after driving over the road bump, veered from the carriageway and knocked down the deceased. 5. I further find that the Defendant failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to exercise reasonable care expected of a prudent driver and failed to avoid the collision. I find no evidential basis for attributing contributory negligence to the deceased. Accordingly, I hold the Defendant 100% liable for the accident. Quantum of Damages 1. Having found the Defendant wholly liable, I now turn to the assessment of damages. The Plaintiff seeks damages under both the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act, together with special damages. In assessing damages, the Court is guided by the principle that awards should be fair and reasonable, taking into account the evidence adduced and awards made in comparable cases. Pain and Suffering 1. The Plaintiff proposed an award of KShs.100,000/= and relied upon Sukari Industries Limited v Clyde Machimbo Juma [2016] eKLR. The Defendant proposed KShs.50,000/=. 2. The evidence shows that the deceased did not die instantly. Following the accident, he was taken to Pandya Memorial Hospital where he was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and later succumbed to his injuries. It is therefore evident that he experienced pain and suffering before his demise. 3. In Sukari Industries Limited v Clyde Machimbo Juma (supra), the Court observed that where death occurs after the victim has endured pain for some time, a higher award is justified than where death is instantaneous. 4. Considering the circumstances of this case and comparable awards, I find that an award of KShs.100,000/= is fair and reasonable. Loss of Expectation of Life 1. The Plaintiff proposed KShs.200,000/= while the Defendant proposed KShs.50,000/=. The Plaintiff relied upon Muita v Njoroge & Another [2024] KEHC 6305 (KLR) and Agnes Mutinda Ndolo & Another v Mboya Wambua & 2 Others [2017] eKLR. 2. An award under this head is conventional and intended to compensate the estate for the loss of the normal expectation of life. While the deceased was in good health and actively employed prior to the accident, the Court notes that the conventional award under this head has generally remained at KShs.100,000/=, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a higher award. 3. Having considered the authorities cited and the circumstances of this case, I find that an award of KShs.100,000/= is appropriate. Loss of Dependency 1. The Plaintiff seeks damages under the Fatal Accidents Act for loss of dependency. The evidence before the Court establishes that the deceased was survived by his widow, the Plaintiff herein, and two adult children. PW2 testified that she was a housewife and depended upon the deceased for her maintenance. That evidence was neither challenged nor controverted. I am therefore satisfied that the Plaintiff was a dependant within the meaning of the Fatal Accidents Act. 2. In assessing damages under this head, the Court is guided by the multiplicand/multiplier approach, where the circumstances permit its application. The Court must determine the deceased's earnings, the appropriate multiplier and the dependency ratio. Multiplicand 1. PW3, the Human Resource Manager, and PW4, a Director of Corrugated Sheets Limited, produced evidence confirming that the deceased was employed by the company at the time of his death. The salary records produced in evidence indicate that the deceased earned a net monthly salary of KShs.136,474/= after statutory deductions. 2. The Plaintiff urged the Court to adopt the net salary relying on Grace Wairimu Kariuki v Attorney General, where the Court held that in computing loss of dependency, only statutory deductions ought to be excluded since other deductions constitute part of the employee's earnings and are ordinarily for the benefit of the employee or his family. 3. I respectfully agree with that proposition. The objective is to ascertain the income that would have been available to the deceased and his dependants. Accordingly, I adopt a multiplicand of KShs.136,474/= per month. Multiplier 1. The Plaintiff proposed a multiplier of fourteen (14) years, contending that the deceased remained in active employment and that his employer had no mandatory retirement age. 2. The Defendant urged the Court to adopt a multiplier of two (2) years, relying on Multi Gibbs Enterprises Limited v Ellabongo [2025] KEHC 13880 (KLR) and Sanjit Singh Suri v Silvia Eggman & Another [2019] eKLR, where relatively short multipliers were adopted for elderly deceased persons. 3. I have carefully considered those authorities. In Multi Gibbs Enterprises Limited v Ellabongo, the Court emphasized that the choice of a multiplier is not a matter of mathematical precision but depends on the particular circumstances of each case, including the age of the deceased, the nature of employment and the vicissitudes of life. Similarly, in Sanjit Singh Suri v Silvia Eggman & Another, the Court reiterated that a multiplier should reflect the uncertainties of life and should not be adopted mechanically. 4. The present case, however, is distinguishable from the authorities relied upon by the Defendant. PW3 and PW4 gave uncontroverted evidence that the deceased's employer had no mandatory retirement age and those employees continued working for as long as they remained medically fit. They further testified that some employees had continued in employment well beyond the conventional retirement age. 5. While that evidence persuades the Court that the deceased would probably have continued working beyond the age of sixty-five years, the Court must nevertheless take into account the uncertainties of life, including advancing age, ill health and other unforeseen contingencies. It would therefore be speculative to assume that the deceased would have remained in active employment for a further fourteen years as proposed by the Plaintiff. Balancing all these considerations, I am of the view that a multiplier of five (5) years is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Dependency Ratio 1. The Plaintiff urged the Court to adopt a dependency ratio of two-thirds (2/3), while the Defendant proposed one-half (1/2) on the basis that the deceased's children were adults. 2. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, the Court is required to determine the extent to which the deceased applied his earnings towards the maintenance of his dependants. The dependency ratio is not fixed and must be determined on the facts of each case. 3. The evidence before this Court establishes that the deceased was survived by his widow and two adult children. PW2 testified that following the death of the deceased, she relocated to Australia where she now resides with her adult children. Although she stated that she had been financially dependent upon the deceased during his lifetime, there was no evidence that the adult children remained financially dependent on him at the time of his death. 4. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the conventional dependency ratio of two-thirds (2/3) is appropriate. Considering that the children had attained adulthood and the widow was, by the time of the hearing, residing with them, I find that a dependency ratio of one-half (1/2) more accurately reflects the extent of the dependency proved before this Court. Accordingly, I adopt a dependency ratio of 1/2. 5. The loss of dependency is therefore calculated as follows: KShs.136,474 × 12 × 5 × 1/2 = KShs.4,094,220/= Special Damages 1. The law is settled that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. The Plaintiff pleaded special damages amounting to KShs.359,376/=. Upon considering the documentary evidence produced, I am satisfied that the following items were proved: Medical expenses 233,276 Investigation fees 25,100 Cremation expenses 20,000 Limited Grant Ad Litem 30,000 Total 308,376 1. The claims relating to the P3 Form and body preparation/religious ceremonies were not supported by documentary proof. Those claims are therefore declined. **Disposition** 1. In the result, I find that the Plaintiff has proved her case against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities. The evidence adduced establishes that the Defendant failed to exercise the degree of care expected of a prudent driver. The Defendant failed to maintain proper control of his motor vehicle after negotiating the unmarked road bump, causing it to veer off the roadway and strike the deceased. 2. The Defendant's assertion that the deceased suddenly entered the roadway was not supported by any independent evidence. On the contrary, the evidence of PW5 and PW6, coupled with the Defendant's plea of guilty in the traffic proceedings, lends credence to the Plaintiff's version of events. Although a conviction in the traffic court is not conclusive proof of negligence in civil proceedings, it is a relevant factor which, when considered together with the entirety of the evidence, reinforces the finding that the Defendant was solely responsible for the accident. 3. I therefore find the Defendant 100% liable for the accident. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant as follows: 4. Liability is assessed at 100% against the Defendant. 5. The Plaintiff is awarded damages in the total sum of Kenya Shillings Four Million Six Hundred and Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-Six (KShs.54,602,596/=), made up as follows: 6. Pain and Suffering – KShs.100,000/=; 7. Loss of Expectation of Life – KShs.100,000/=; 8. Loss of Dependency – KShs. 4,094,220/=; and 9. Special Damages – KShs.308,376/=. **Total Award: KShs.4,602,596/=** 1. The Plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit. 2. Special damages shall attract interest at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full. 3. General damages shall attract interest at court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS 30TH JULY 2026.** ............................................ **EMILY M. MWAMUYE** **SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE**