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 plaintiff proved the accident, ownership of the matatu, and her injuries, but not negligence by the defendant’s driver. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Default judgment in a road accident negligence suit. The court awarded the plaintiff Kshs. 700,000 general damages and Kshs. 3,250 special damages.
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.
The High Court at Machakos dismissed a fatal accident appeal, upholding a loss of dependency award based on the multiplier approach and minimum wage benchmark.
Ochieng v Saidi (Civil Case E992 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 790 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
Because interlocutory judgment had been entered and no defence or contrary evidence was filed, the Plaintiff’s account of the accident remained uncontroverted and liability was fixed at 100% against the Defendant. The Plaintiff proved uncomplicated soft tissue injuries only, with no permanent incapacity, making KShs. 300,000 a fair general damages award. The pleaded special damages were supported by receipts totaling KShs. 2,550, so they were awarded in full.
Source excerpt
Oketch v Akida & another (Civil Case E1185 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 815 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that KCY 450M was involved in the accident, that the 2nd Defendant negligently failed to maintain proper lookout and sufficient clearance while overtaking a stalled vehicle being pushed on the road, and that this caused the Plaintiff’s right tibial fracture and right-foot injury. No contributory negligence was established. General damages were assessed at KShs. 550,000 using comparable awards, and special damages of KShs. 12,065 were strictly proved.
Source excerpt
Tsuwi & another (Suing as the Administrators and Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Tumaini Nguwa Tsuwi - Deceased) v Dhanjal Brothers Ltd alias Dhanjal Bros Ltd (Civil Case E735 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 782 (KLR) (27 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiffs proved on a balance of probabilities that the driver of KAX 393L permitted or acquiesced in the deceased’s attempt to board and moved the vehicle before he had safely boarded, thereby breaching the duty of care owed. However, the deceased also assumed an obvious risk by boarding a heavy commercial refuse lorry and failed to exercise full care for his own safety, warranting contributory negligence at 20%. The Defendant was vicariously liable as registered owner and employer/authoriser of the driver’s conduct, and the pleaded special damages were mostly proved.
Source excerpt
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
Wang’ombe v Njoroge & another (Civil Case E10171 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 13118 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant lost proper control of the Defendant’s vehicle and was negligent; the 1st Defendant was vicariously liable because the 2nd Defendant was driving the 1st Defendant’s vehicle and no evidence rebutted the servant/agency inference; special damages were only partly proved, and the claim for loss of user, though not strictly proved at the pleaded rate, warranted a modest global award because the vehicle was a PSV and was off the road for repairs.
Source excerpt
Longel v City Star Shuttle (Civil Case E1455 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 774 (KLR) (26 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant’s driver negligently caused the collision. The unchallenged assessment report and supporting evidence established that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a total loss with a pre-accident value of Kshs.1,400,000 and salvage value of Kshs.255,000, and the pleaded consequential expenses were sufficiently proved. The Court therefore awarded the net special damages proved, not the higher arithmetically inconsistent total pleaded in submissions.
Source excerpt
Explore more
