https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9851

Ambunya v Kensa Plascon Kenya Ltd & another (Civil Appeal E1275 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 9851 (KLR) (Civ) (2 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9851 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E1275 of 2024 PK Rotich, J July 2, 2026 Between Wycliffe Juju Ambunya Appellant and Kensa Plascon Kenya Limited 1st Respondent Iddi Osobulo 2nd Respondent (Being an appeal from the judgement of Hon.W. Mbulikah (PM) dated 29th October, 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E2413 of 2022) Judgment 1.In his plaint dated 14th April, 2022 the Appellant averred that at all material times to this suit, the 1st Defendant was the registered owner of motor vehicle registration Number KBZ139X while the 2nd defendant was the driver and or the actual but unregistered owner of the said motor vehicle or otherwise had a beneficial or insurable interest on it. The Appellant, further, averred that on or about the 7th day of August, 2021 the plaintiff was lawfully and carefully a passenger onboard motor vehicle registration number KBZ 139X along North Airport Road when the driver and/or either was so recklessly driven that the same was allowed to collide with motor vehicle registration number GN 134958 occasioning the appellant severe bodily injuries and as a result which he suffered loss and damage. The Appellant, therefore, claimed general damages, special damages of Ksh. 4,500 and costs. 2.The respondents failed to enter appearance and or file defence despite service of summons and the plaint. Interlocutory judgement was, therefore, entered against them on 2nd August, 2022 and the case proceeded by way of formal prof on 14th April, 2024. 3.During the hearing of this case at the trial court the appellant adopted his witness statement dated 14th April, 2022. He also produced documents listed in his list of documents as P. Exhibit 1 to 8. 4.In his statement the appellant basically reiterated his claims in the plaint how the subject accident herein occurred. He also stated that after the accident he was rushed to Nairobi West Hospital where he was treated and discharged the same day. 5.Finally, the appellant blamed the driver of motor vehicle registration number KBZ 139X for the accident and the injuries he sustained and prayed for compensation. 6.The trial court, however, found that the appellant failed to prove his case on liability on a balance of probabilities because the police abstract (P. Exhibit No. 1) relied by the appellant indicates that motor vehicle registration GN B4958 was blamed for the accident. The court therefore, dismissed the appellant’s suit with no order was to costs. 7.Being dissatisfied with judgement of the trial court the Appellant preferred this appeal. The appeal is based on 6 grounds but which case be summarised into one main ground. The said ground is whether the learned Magistrate erred in law and fact in finding that the plaintiff had not proved his case on liability against the defendants. 8.It is not in dispute that the police abstract (P. Exhibit 1) produced and relied on and produced by the appellant indicates that motor vehicle “GN B4958 blamed”. The said motor vehicle was driven by Paul Munyoki. The plaintiff, however, sued Kensai Plascon Kenya Limited the registered owner of motor vehicle KBZ 139X and its driver Iddi Osobulo. This court fails to understand why the plaintiff chose to sue the driver of motor vehicle KBZ 139X and its registered owner and rely on a police abstract in which the driver of the other vehicle is blamed. 9.It is this Court’s finding the learned trial magistrate position that appellant failed to prove his case on a balance of accurate and can not be faulted. This appeal lacks merit and therefore, the same is dismissed. The Court, however, makes no orders as to cost because the same was undefended. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026.HON. P. K. ROTICHJUDGEIn the presence of: N/A for the parties.C/A Kipchirchir