https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/528

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT** **AT WAMUNYU** **M.C.C.C. NO. E001 OF 2026** VERONICA WANJERI KARANGA .…..………….…………………. PLAINTIFF -*VERSUS*- CROPCHEM EAST AFRICA LIMITED .……..….……………..… DEFENDANT **JUDGEMENT** 1. **CASE SUMMARY:** 2. The Plaintiff commenced this suit by way of a Plaint dated January 22, 2026, which was subsequently amended and filed as a Further Amended Plaint on May 11, 2026. The Plaintiff’s claim arises from a road traffic accident that occurred on June 24, 2025, at or near the Kivalani area along the Machakos–Kitui Road. 3. The Plaintiff alleges that on the material date, she was lawfully standing as a pedestrian beside the road when the Defendant’s motor vehicle, registration number KCX 158Y, which was under the control and management of the Defendant's authorized driver, servant, or agent, was driven so recklessly, dangerously, and at such an excessive speed that it lost control and violently knocked her down. As a direct result of the impact, the Plaintiff sustained serious bodily injuries, including a blunt head injury, soft tissue injuries to the left side of the face, anterior chest wall, left knee, and abdomen. The abdominal injuries later developed into a symptomatic umbilical hernia requiring surgical correction. 4. The Plaintiff seeks general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, special damages for medical expenses and motor vehicle search records, future medical expenses to cater for the corrective hernia surgery, loss of income during her period of physical incapacity, costs of the suit, and interest. 5. The Defendant filed its defense denying all allegations of negligence and liability, initially shifting the blame to the Plaintiff. However, on June 16, 2026, the parties settled the question of liability by executing and recording a formal consent. Under the terms of the consent, liability was apportioned in the ratio of 90% against the Defendant and 10% against the Plaintiff. The parties further agreed to rely entirely on the witness statements and medical documentation contained in the Plaintiff's List and Bundle of Documents dated May 11, 2026, dispensing with the need to call the authors or makers thereof. Consequently, the dispute was left to the court for a determination on the quantum of damages based on the parties' written submissions. 6. **PRE-TRIAL DIRECTIONS:** 7. Following the entry of the consent on liability on June 16, 2026, the court directed the parties to file and serve their respective written submissions on the quantum of damages. The Plaintiff's submissions were duly filed by Messrs. D.M. Munyaka & Co. Advocates on June 19, 2026, while the Defendant’s submissions were filed by Messrs. Mutua Waweru Advocates LLP on July 7, 2026. The matter was thereafter reserved for judgement. 8. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 9. In the case of ODD JOBS v MUBEA [1970] EA 476 the Court established that *the issues to be decided by a court originate from the pleadings submitted by the parties. Alternatively, if an issue is not explicitly pleaded, it may arise from the proceedings during the trial, leaving it to the court for a final decision*. 10. Consequently, in this case, the court wishes to lay down the issues falling for determination as follows: 11. **What quantum of general damages is payable to the Plaintiff?** 12. **Is the Plaintiff entitled to future medical expenses?** 13. **Should Loss of Income be awarded? and** 14. **Whether Special Damages should issue?** 15. **ANALYSIS** 1. **GENERAL DAMAGES PAYABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF?** 2. The medical reports and treatment notes submitted by the Plaintiff reveal that she sustained a blunt head injury, soft tissue facial injuries, soft tissue injuries on the left side of the chest wall with localized tenderness, soft tissue injuries on the left knee, and severe abdominal contusions. Crucially, the clinical sheet from Machakos Level 5 Hospital dated March 26, 2026, and the corresponding abdomino-pelvic ultrasound report from the German Medical Centre reveal that the blunt abdominal trauma subsequently culminated in a painful umbilical region defect measuring 0.61 cm with an associated avascular hypoechoic mass, diagnosed as omphalitis and recurrent umbilical hernia requiring surgical correction and mesh placement. 3. The Plaintiff argues that the emergence of the hernia elevates her injuries beyond ordinary or minor soft tissue trauma, placing her case in a higher category that justifies an award of **Kshs. 1,500,000/=.** Conversely, the Defendant submits that an award of Kshs. 650,000/= is fair, reasonable, and fully compensatory, relying on ***Peter Muvake & Another v Agnes Nduku Mutie*** and ***Distributors v Nyabochwa [2025] KEHC 3310 KLR***, where an epigastric hernia combined with extensive dislocations and bone fractures attracted **Kshs. 500,000/=.** 4. In assessing general damages, the court must ensure that comparable injuries attract comparable awards while adjusting for inflation and economic realities **(*Kemfro Africa Ltd t/a Meru Express Service v Lubia [1985] eKLR*)**. The court notes that while ordinary soft tissue injuries typically attract awards ranging between **Kshs. 80,000/=** and **Kshs. 150,000/=** **(*Macharia v Kirimi [2023] KEHC 24185 KLR*)**, the Plaintiff’s abdominal trauma led to a structural defect (umbilical hernia) causing ongoing discomfort and requiring invasive surgery. However, the Plaintiff's request for **Kshs. 1,500,000/=** is excessively high, as there are no long-term neurological deficits, or permanent paralysis as seen in catastrophic injury cases. Taking into accounts all matching precedents, the nature of the soft tissue trauma, and the specific complication of the umbilical hernia, the court assesses general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities at a reasonable sum of **Kshs. 650,000/=**. **II. Future Medical Expenses** 1. The Plaintiff has pleaded a sum of **Kshs. 30,000/=** in respect of estimated future medical expenses for corrective umbilical hernia surgery. This claim is explicitly anchored on the medical report compiled by the examining practitioner, which marks the necessity of surgical correction to mend the abdominal wall defect and resolve the chronic omphalitis. The Defendant, in a commendable display of professional candour, concedes to this head of claim in its written submissions, admitting that the cost was properly itemized, pleaded, and supported by the medical prognosis on record. 2. In Despite the bilateral consensus between the parties, the court is duty-bound to examine the legal propriety of this head of claim, given the deep divergence in Kenyan jurisprudence regarding how future medical costs should be evaluated. In ***Zacharia Waweru Thumbi v Samuel Njoroge Thuku [2006] KEHC 2976 KLR***, it was strictly held that because future medical expenses represent money not yet spent, they constitute a futuristic and speculative loss. That school of thought argues that a medical doctor's cost projection is mere guesswork, and because special damages require a receipt showing actual expenditure, an unpaid invoice or estimation must fail for want of strict proof. 3. This court, however, aligns itself with the progressive and binding position established by the Court of Appeal in ***Tracom Limited & Another v Hassan Mohamed Adan [2009] eKLR*** and reiterated in ***Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v AMK [2021] KECA 52 KLR***. The law recognizes that future medical treatment, though structural in its evaluation, is a distinct claim that can be awarded if it is specifically pleaded and supported by a clear medical prognosis. To demand standard receipts or a "paid" endorsement for medical procedures that have not yet occurred would be logistically impossible and a clear denial of justice. As observed in ***Forwarding Company Limited v Kisilu [2022] KECA 96 KLR***, a prognosis can change, and requiring exact proof for money estimated to be spent would be entirely unreasonable. 4. In the present case, the Plaintiff met the threshold of accessibility and certainty: she specifically pleaded the hernia surgery under paragraph 11(c) of her Further Amended Plaint, and the medical evidence directly links the umbilical defect to the blunt impact from the accident. The projected surgical cost of Kshs. 30,000/= is realistic and moderate. This court therefore finds that the future medical expenses have been sufficiently proved as a valid estimate. The claim is hereby allowed in the pleaded sum of **Kshs. 30,000/=**. **III. LOSS OF INCOME** 1. The Plaintiff asserts in her written submissions that she was a retail businesswoman earning a monthly net income of Kshs. 50,000/=, and claims a sum of Kshs. 350,000/= representing seven (7) months of complete business interruption due to her physical injuries. The Defendant strongly opposes this claim, pointing out that there is absolutely no mention of the Plaintiff's business details, registration, or earnings in the body of the Plaint or her Witness Statement, and that no documentary accounts or bank records were produced to support the claim. 2. The The Plaintiff asserts in her written submissions that she was a retail businesswoman earning a monthly net income of Kshs. 50,000/=, and claims a sum of Kshs. 350,000/= representing seven (7) months of complete business interruption due to her physical injuries. The Defendant strongly opposes this claim, pointing out that there is absolutely no mention of the Plaintiff's business details, registration, or earnings in the body of the Plaint or her Witness Statement, and that no documentary accounts or bank records were produced to support the claim. 3. It is a fundamental principle of civil litigation that claims for loss of actual earnings fall under special damages. They must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by empirical evidence, such as financial statements, business permits, or books of account. In ***Douglas Kalafa Ombeva v David Ngama [2013] KECA 538***, the Court of Appeal clearly stated that where a claimant throws figures at the head of the court without providing actual proof of income, the court cannot act on speculation or in a vacuum. Writing down a loss in submissions without proving it during the trial is of no legal value **(*Karani v Nchedu [1995-1998] 1 EA 87*)**. Consequently, since the Plaintiff failed to produce any documentary records to substantiate her alleged earnings, the claim for loss of income fails completely and is hereby **disallowed**. **IV. SPECIAL DAMAGES** 1. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by the production of valid receipts or invoices showing actual expenditure **(*Hahn v Singh [1985] KLR 716*)**. The Plaintiff pleaded special damages totalling **Kshs. 62,150/=** in her Further Amended Plaint. The Defendant contests this figure, arguing that only **Kshs. 20,065/=** was strictly proved, while the balance consists of hospital invoices that lack stamp duty stamps. 2. The court has analyzed all the receipts in the initial list of documents and the subsequent list of documents and found that the Plaintiff pleaded and specifically proved receipts totalling **Kshs. 14,070/-** **CONCLUSION**: 1. In In the final analysis, the Plaintiff has proved her case on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the following assessed amounts: a. General Damages: Kshs. 650,000/= b. Future Medical Expenses: Kshs. 30,000/= c. Proved Special Damages: Kshs. 11,670/= **Total Sum: Kshs. 691,670/=** 1. Applying the consent recorded on **June 16, 2026**, the Plaintiff's award must be reduced by her 10% contribution to the accident, leaving the Defendant 90% liable for the final payout. The court issues final orders as follows: 2. **Judgment is hereby entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of Kshs. 622,503/=.** 3. **The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs of this suit.** 4. **Interest shall accrue on special damages from the date the suit was filed, and on general damages from the date of this judgment, calculated at standard court rates until paid in full.** 5. **A 30-day stay of execution is hereby granted.** Dated this 11th day of AUGUST, 2026 at Wamunyu Law Courts.  **HON. P. E. NABWANA** **SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Plaintiff: Learned Counsel Mr. Munyaka Adv. Defendant: Learned Counsel Ms. Kasoha Adv. Court Assistant: Geoffrey/Faith