Macharia v Abaga & 2 others (Civil Suit 2550 of 2020) [2023] KEMC 85 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court

30 March 2023

JAJeal Praxades Atieno Aduke

521 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan court dismissed a road accident claim because the plaintiff's only proof of fault, the police abstract, was illegible and unsupported.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The plaintiff sued the three defendants over a road traffic accident of 17th February 2020 in Nairobi, alleging that the driver of motor vehicle KCL 829S negligently lost control and rammed into the plaintiff's vehicle KBH 956X, damaging it. The plaintiff, apparently an insurer (the plaint did not state whether it sued under subrogation), sought special damages of KES 287,160/-, costs and interest. The defendants entered appearance and defended the suit; the plaintiff called two witnesses who adopted their statements, and the defence closed its case without calling witnesses. The court framed two issues: liability and quantum. On liability, the Police Abstract on record was completely illegible and there was no police investigation report. Although NTSA records confirmed the 1st defendant's ownership of KCL 829S as at March 2020, no evidence established who was to blame for the accident. Relying on section 8 of the Traffic Act, Cap 403, and the reasoning in Wellington Nganga Muthiora v Akamba Public Road Services & Another [2010] eKLR, the magistrate found the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants not liable. Consequently quantum was not assessed; the suit was found unmerited and dismissed, with no award on costs. Judgment was signed and delivered virtually on 30th March 2023 by Senior Resident Magistrate Jeal Praxades Atieno Aduke.

Key legal issues

Liability for the road traffic accident

Holding

The plaintiff failed to prove liability; the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were found not liable

Reasoning

The only evidence on liability was a Police Abstract that was completely illegible. NTSA records confirmed the 1st defendant's ownership of KCL 829S as at March 2020, but there was no police investigation report or other evidence identifying who caused the accident. Relying on section 8 of the Traffic Act and Wellington Nganga Muthiora v Akamba Public Road Services & Another, the court held it could not apportion liability and the defendants were not liable.

p. 2

Quantum

Holding

Not reached; the suit was dismissed on liability

Reasoning

Having found no liability, the court found the suit unmerited and dismissed it without assessing quantum. It made no award on costs, effectively each party bearing its own costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Where the police abstract is illegible and no investigation report or other proof exists, a plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proving liability for a road traffic accident

Court orders

1.The suit is dismissed
2.No award on costs

Authorities

Legislation

Traffic Act, Cap 403 Laws of Kenyasection 8

Cases cited (1)

Wellington Nganga Muthiora v Akamba Public Road Services & Another
[2010] eKLR

Jurisdiction invoked: Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a road traffic accident claim

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Macharia v Abaga & 2 others (Civil Suit 2550 of 2020) [2023] KEMC 85 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2023/85/eng@2023-03-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.