Kamau v China Road and Bridge Corporation (Civil Case 314 of 2017) [2025] KEMC 228 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker injured in a tyre accident at work was awarded over Ksh. 1.2 million after his employer ignored the lawsuit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant at the material time
- 2.Whether the plaintiff was involved in an industrial accident on 7/12/2015 while in the course of his employment with the defendant
- 3.Whether the defendant is liable in negligence for the accident
- 4.Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered loss as a result of the accident
- 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, the nature and quantum thereof
- 6.Who should bear the costs of this suit
Key legal issues
#Effect of interlocutory judgment on liability
The defendant was held 100% liable because interlocutory judgment had been regularly entered, settling liability
The court relied on settled authority that where interlocutory judgment is entered, liability is a foregone conclusion and the court's only remaining task is to assess damages. The plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence confirmed employment and the industrial accident of 7/12/2015.
Quantum of general damages for fracture of the right humerus
Ksh. 800,000/= awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
The court applied the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards, moderated for inflation. Comparable authorities involving humerus fractures with awards of Ksh. 500,000/= and Ksh. 600,000/= were considered dated, justifying the plaintiff's proposed Ksh. 800,000/=.
Proof of special damages
Only Ksh. 6,000/= of the pleaded Ksh. 9,000/= was proven
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Although medical expenses of Ksh. 3,000/= and a medical report of Ksh. 6,000/= were pleaded, only the medical report cost was proven, so only that sum was awarded.
Damages for diminished earning capacity without a specific plea
Award of Ksh. 400,000/= made despite the head not being pleaded, based on 20% permanent functional disability
Following Court of Appeal authority, loss of earning capacity need not be specifically pleaded but there must be a basis for the award on a balance of probabilities. The 20% disability and inability to resume tyreman duties justified an award, but the plaintiff resumed light duties, so the proposed Ksh. 1,000,000/= was reduced.
Interest on the award
Interest on general damages from date of judgment; interest on special damages from date of filing suit
Relying on section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act and case law, the court held that the award of interest is discretionary but general damages attract interest from the date of judgment (when ascertained), while special damages attract interest from the date of loss/filing suit.
Legal principles established
#- Once interlocutory judgment has been entered, the question of liability becomes settled and the court's role is limited to assessment of damages
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- Loss of earning capacity, as opposed to loss of earnings, falls within general damages and need not be specifically pleaded, but must be proved on a balance of probabilities
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing of suit while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of Ksh. 800,000/= against the defendant
- 2.Special damages of Ksh. 6,000/= (proven medical report cost)
- 3.Damages for diminished earning capacity of Ksh. 400,000/=, not to attract interest
- 4.Total award of Ksh. 1,206,000/=
- 5.Interest on general damages at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full
- 6.Interest on special damages from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment
- 7.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a personal injury claim founded on negligence and breach of employment terms
Relief refused
#Special damages of Ksh. 9,000/= as pleaded (medical expenses Ksh. 3,000/= not proven)
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; only the Ksh. 6,000/= medical report cost was proven
Ksh. 1,000,000/= claimed as damages for diminished earning capacity
The figure proposed was excessive; evidence showed the plaintiff resumed light duties and the risk of losing employment was minimal
Costs
The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit (interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant; the court awarded 'interest on the general damages as well as costs of the suit' to the plaintiff).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstances, I find the defendant 100% liable.
In summary, I hold that the plaintifi has proven his case on a balance of probabilities as against the defendant.
General damages for pain, sufiering and loss of amenities.........Ksh. 800,000/=
The plaintifi is also awarded interest on the general damages as well as costs of the suit.
interest on general damages shall accrue at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full whereas interest on special damages shall accrue from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
The award can be a token one, modest or substantial depending on the circumstances of each case.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of this suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the filing date (3/10/2017) is given.
The judgment cites 'Ratcliffe v Evans [1832] 2Q.B. 524' - an apparently erroneous year for a QB report (the leading case is usually dated [1892]), as printed in the judgment.
The judgment states interest on special damages should run 'from the date of the loss till payment in full' but then orders it only 'from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment'.
The disposition states the plaintiff is awarded 'interest on the general damages' without expressly mentioning special damages interest, but the following paragraph provides for interest on special damages.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v China Road and Bridge Corporation (Civil Case 314 of 2017) [2025] KEMC 228 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/228/eng@2025-09-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.