King’ori v Basari Company Limited & 2 others (Civil Case 611 of 2016) [2025] KEMC 309 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 sustained injuries and suffered loss as a result of the accident
- 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, the nature and quantum thereof
- 3.Who should bear the costs of this suit
Key legal issues
#Proof of injuries and liability
The plaintiff proved her injuries and, given the consent on liability adopting the test suit (80% against the 1st defendant, 20% against the 2nd and 3rd defendants), was entitled to damages against the defendants
Medical evidence including the P3 form classified the injuries as grievous harm, with permanent disability of the right leg assessed at 35%. There was no contrary evidence, and the 1st defendant called no witness. Liability had been settled by a consent adopting the test suit's apportionment, which was adopted as an order of the court.
Quantum of general damages
Ksh. 2,000,000/= awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, having regard to comparable acetabulum/hip injury awards, the 35% permanent disability and inflation
The court found the plaintiff's cited authorities not comparable to her injuries and instead considered its own comparable authorities involving fractures of the acetabulum and hip dislocation. Balancing the severity of injury, the 35% disability, the age of the awards and inflation, it settled on Ksh. 2,000,000/=.
Quantum of special damages
Special damages awarded at Ksh. 1,973,230.58/=, being proved medical expenses plus the medical report, as the police abstract was unreceipted and taxi fares were unpleaded
Applying the rule that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, the court disallowed the unproved police abstract charge and the unpleaded taxi fare receipts, awarding only the proved medical expenses of Ksh. 1,971,230.58 and Ksh. 2,000 for the medical report.
Interest on damages
Interest on general damages to accrue at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full; interest on special damages from the date of filing suit
Relying on section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act and authorities including Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General, the court held that interest is discretionary but that special damages attract interest from the date of loss/filing while general damages, being ascertained only at judgment, attract interest from that date.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- Assessment of general damages is a discretionary judicial exercise; comparable injuries should receive comparable awards
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss, 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. 2,000,000/= awarded
- 2.Special damages of Ksh. 1,973,230.58/= awarded
- 3.1st defendant to pay the plaintiff Ksh. 3,178,584.464/= and the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay Ksh. 794,646.116/= in accordance with the 80:20 apportionment of liability
- 4.Interest on general damages at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full
- 5.Interest on special damages from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree
- 6.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, payable by the defendants in accordance with the apportionment on liability
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 the road traffic accident claim; interest awarded under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Special damages as claimed of Ksh. 2,265,344.78/=
No receipt for the police abstract; proved medical expenses were lower; taxi receipts related to unpleaded claim
General damages as claimed of Ksh. 3,500,000/=
The authorities relied upon concerned injuries at variance with those suffered by the plaintiff and were not comparable
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, to be paid by the defendants in accordance with the apportionment on liability
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.
General damages for pain, sufiering and loss of amenities..Ksh. 2,000,000/=
Special damages....Ksh. 1,973,230.58/=
The 1st defendant shall pay to the plaintifi the some of Ksh. 3,178,584.464/= whereas the 2nd and 3rd defendants shall pay Ksh. 794,646.116/=
The plaintifi is also awarded interest on the damages as well as costs of the suit. This shall be paid by the defendants in accordance with the apportionment on liability.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
interest rates on special damages should be with efiect from the date of the loss till payment in full while with regard to general damages this should be from the date of judgement as it is only ascertained in the judgement
Issues in the judgment
#The general damages award is inconsistently written as 'Ksh. 2000,000/=' in the reasoning, which does not conform to the Ksh. 2,000,000/= figure used in the disposition
The apportioned sums attributed to the defendants do not arithmetically match the total award of Ksh. 3,973,230.58/= (80% and 20%)
The plaintiff's pleaded special damages in the plaint (Ksh. 2,265,344.78/=) differs from the special damages submitted in court (Ksh. 2,734,035/=)
The judgment recites delivery at Makindu by a Senior Principal Magistrate, but the case title/court heading is not reproduced in the record supplied, leaving the exact court designation unstated in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "King’ori v Basari Company Limited & 2 others (Civil Case 611 of 2016) [2025] KEMC 309 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (arising from civil case No. 114 of 2015 test suit on liability). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/309/eng@2025-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.