https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/185

Wanderi v Ng’ang’a & another (Civil Case E149 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 185 (KLR) (24 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 185 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Murang'a Law Courts Civil Case E149 of 2024 GK Waithira, SRM June 24, 2026 Between Benard Ngugi Wanderi Plaintiff and James Ng’Ang’A 1st Defendant Joan Wairimu Kigo 2nd Defendant Judgment 1.The plaintiff avers that on 26th December 2021 at about 3:45 p.m., he was riding motorcycle registration number KMFP 695R along Kenol/Murang’a road when the 1st defendant drove the 2nd defendant’s motor vehicle registration number KCP 217S carelessly, causing it to collide with the motorcycle being ridden by the plaintiff as a result of which he sustained injuries. The plaintiff averred that he sustained a fracture of the right tibia bone, soft tissue injuries on the right leg and a crush injury on the right big toe as a result of the accident. His claim against the defendant, as set out in his plaint dated 8th August 2024 was for general damages, special damages of Kshs. 18,750/=, costs of the suit and interest. 2.The defendants did not file defences despite service. Interlocutory judgment was therefore entered against the defendants after which the matter proceeded for formal proof hearing. Issues 3.The two issues for determination in this case are the apportionment of liability and assessment of quantum. 4.An interlocutory judgment entered against a defendant who fails to enter appearance or file a defence, resolves the question of liability in favor of the plaintiff. That was the finding of the court in the case of Paul Muiyoro t/a Spotted Zebra v Bulent Gulbahar Remax Realtors [2016] KECA 95 (KLR) where the court held as follows;“It is now settled that once interlocutory judgment has been entered the question of liability becomes a foregone conclusion. In Felix Mathenge -v- Kenya Power Lighting Company Limited [Civil Appeal No. 215 of 2002] UR, the Court held:"The role of the court after entering interlocutory judgment was only to assess damages since interlocutory judgment having been regularly obtained there can never be any doubt that judgment was final with regard to liability and was unassailable. It was only interlocutory with regard to the quantum of damages". 5.Consequently, the sole issue for determination is the assessment of damages. General Damages 6.In assessing general damages, the court is guided by awards made in comparable cases. It must bear in mind that no two cases involve identical injuries or resultant disabilities and that each case must be determined on its own peculiar facts. The court must also ensure that the award reflects the economic realities and takes into account the effects of inflation. (See Mohamed Mahmoud Jabane v Highstone Butty Tongoi Olenja [1986] KECA 21 (KLR) 7.The plaintiff in the present case averred that he had sustained a fracture of the right tibia bone, soft tissue injuries on the right leg and a crush injury on the right big toe. The nature and extent of his injuries was confirmed in the medical report prepared at Highway Clinic on 22nd July 2024. For these injuries, the plaintiff’s learned counsel proposed a sum of Kshs. 800,000/= in general damages. 8.Counsel referred to the case of Akamba Public Road Services v Abdikadir Adan Galgalo [2016] KEHC 2339 (KLR) where a sum of Kshs. 500,000/= was awarded to the plaintiff for a fracture of the right tibia bone, blunt soft tissue injuries and permanent impaired functionality of 3 per cent. 9.The above decision relied upon by the plaintiff is a decade old and hardly reflects current judicial trends. This court has therefore considered the more recent decision of Kiama v Mutiso (Civil Appeal 40 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5135 (KLR) (13 May 2024) (Judgment) where the respondent sustained a fracture of the left tibia bone and blunt injury to the left leg and thigh. He had recovered substantially by the time the second medical examination was done. The court in that matter reviewed the award from a sum of Kshs. 700,000/= to Kshs. 400,000/=. 10.In the case of Musili v Mwende alias Daniel Mutisya Mwende (Civil Appeal E022 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 8444 (KLR) (9 July 2024) (Judgment) the respondent sustained multiple soft tissue injuries on the limbs and a fracture of the right fibula. The medical examination put his permanent incapacitation at between 5 and 10 per cent. On appeal, the court reviewed the award of general damages from a sum of Kshs. 800,000/= to a sum of Kshs. 500,000/=. 11.In this case, the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and a fracture on the right leg. His big right toe had also been amputated as a result of the accident. At the time of his examination 3 years after the accident, the plaintiff was still complaining of pain on his right leg and phantom limb syndrome. He had responded well to treatment but the doctor was also of the view that he would suffer early osteoarthritis due to the affected bone which would require medication and physiotherapy in the future. The doctor assessed his permanent incapacity at 5 per cent. 12.Having considered the foregoing authorities, the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and the rate of inflation since the foregoing decisions were made, this court awards the plaintiff a sum of Kshs. 700,000/= in general damages. Special Damages 13.The plaintiff also sought a sum of Kshs. 18,750/= in special damages. He claimed that he had spent Kshs. 9,200/= in medical treatment, Kshs. 3,000/= in obtaining the medical report, Kshs. 6,000/= in having the demand letter written and Kshs. 550/= in obtaining the motor vehicle search. 14.The plaintiff was required to not only specifically plead his claim for special damages but also strictly prove it. The claimant produced copies of receipts to prove the sums expended in medical treatment, obtaining the medical report and the copy of motor vehicle search. He is therefore entitled to the sums sought in special damages. Conclusion 15.In the end, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Kshs. 718,750 /= made up as follows;a.Liability is entered wholly in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants;b.General damages for pain and suffering - Kshs. 700,000/=c.Special damages- Kshs. 18,750/= 16.The above award shall attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. 17.The plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.HON. GRACE WAITHĨRASENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATEJUDGMENT READ ON THE VIRTUAL PLATFORM IN THE PRESENCE OF;C/A JeremiahMs. Maina H/b For Mr. Matu For The PlaintiffNo Appearance For The Defendants