Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court allowed the appeal by Car & General (Trading) Limited, setting aside liability against it after finding it had rebutted ownership and no vicarious link was proved.
The High Court allowed the appeal by Car & General, finding the logbook presumption of ownership rebuts by evidence of prior sale and no basis for vicarious liability.
The High Court allowed an appeal from the Small Claims Court, holding that an unchallenged assessor’s report could prove vehicle repair costs without receipts.
Etyang alias Xaviour v Trail Link Group Ltd (Civil Suit E001 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 854 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Judgment)
The court entered judgment for the plaintiff in a road traffic injury claim, apportioning liability 90:10, awarding damages and future medical expenses.
Marpe & another (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of Ntimioe David Marpe - Deceased) v Kariuru & another (Civil Case E315 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 853 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Judgment)
Fatal accident judgment over the death of a six-year-old child. The court assessed quantum at Kshs.1,575,550 before 15% contribution and entered net judgment for the plaintiffs.
Ambenje v Luwali & another (Civil Case E363 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 787 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he was a pillion passenger injured due to the rider’s loss of control of the motorcycle, and the 1st Defendant led no evidence to rebut that account or support contributory negligence. Liability was therefore apportioned 100% against the 1st Defendant. On quantum, the Court found Kshs. 850,000 fair for general damages given the single tibial plateau fracture, conservative treatment, 6% permanent disability, continuing pain and risk of arthritis, and awarded the strictly proved special damages of Kshs. 2,750 and pleaded future medical exp…
Source excerpt
Anyumba v Kabera (Civil Case E327 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 736 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Court found directly contradictory evidence on how the accident occurred. PW3 supported the Plaintiff’s version that the Defendant’s vehicle reversed into the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but the Defendant and her witness gave the opposite account. Because the Plaintiff’s driver did not testify and no sketch map or equivalent scene evidence was produced, the Court could not hold either party solely liable. It therefore apportioned liability equally at 50:50. On quantum, repair costs and tracing/investigation expenses were proved, but re-inspection charges were not strictly proved because payment…
Source excerpt
Oigara v Bateleur Eagle Safaris Ltd (Civil Suit E307 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 525 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Defendant, as registered owner of the vehicle, was vicariously liable for the uncontroverted negligence of its driver, and the Plaintiff’s proven injuries warranted Kshs. 500,000 as fair general damages; special damages of Kshs. 5,500 were strictly proved, so judgment issued for the Plaintiff in the total sum of Kshs. 505,500 with costs and interest.
Source excerpt
Transline Classic Limited & another v Aloo (Civil Appeal 54 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12834 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the 2nd appellant drove carelessly, hit the trailer from behind, and failed to maintain a safe distance or control speed; the respondent, being a passenger, bore no contributory blame. The general damages award of Kshs. 170,000 was within acceptable range for the proven soft tissue injuries and was not shown to be an erroneous estimate, while special damages of Kshs. 7,550 were strictly proved by receipts.
Source excerpt
Kenya Ports Authority v Oruko & another (Civil Appeal E050 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12877 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appellant was not proved to have prosecuted the respondent, procured the charge, or acted with malice. The evidence showed only that it reported a genuine suspected theft at its premises, after which police independently decided whom to arrest and charge. Because the first, third, and fourth elements of malicious prosecution were not proved against the appellant, liability could not attach to it, and the trial court’s judgment had no legal basis as against the appellant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
