Obado v Crown Bus Service Limited (Civil Case 122 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 18 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a bus passenger over Ksh. 203,000 after a crash, holding the bus company fully liable based on a police abstract showing the driver's careless driving conviction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability for the road traffic accident
The plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's driver was 100% liable; the defendant was vicariously liable
Although the plaintiff, who was asleep, could not describe how the accident occurred, the unchallenged police abstract showed the defendant's driver was convicted of careless driving and fined. Under section 47A of the Evidence Act the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt. The plaintiff was a mere passenger with no negligence attributed to him, and the defendant called no evidence. Ownership was proved through registrar's records and the abstract. The defendant therefore bore 100% vicarious liability.
Burden of proof of negligence
The burden lay on the plaintiff to prove negligence, but the burden was discharged through the uncontroverted police abstract and conviction
The court applied sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and the Kirugi v Kabiya principle that the burden of proving negligence is on the plaintiff even at formal proof. However, since the defendant produced no evidence to counter the police abstract showing the driver's conviction for careless driving, the plaintiff's evidence amounted to a preponderance establishing a prima facie case that required an answer which never came.
Quantum of general damages for soft tissue injuries
Ksh. 200,000/= awarded in general damages
Applying the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards, with regard to inflation and the age of authorities, the court considered the plaintiff's Ksh. 250,000/= proposal and the defendant's Ksh. 30,000/= proposal and compared two recent appellate decisions reducing awards for soft tissue injuries to Ksh. 150,000/=. Adjusting for inflation, Ksh. 200,000/= was held to suffice.
Special damages
Ksh. 3,000/= for the medical report awarded as specially pleaded and strictly proved by receipt
The court restated the rule that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, citing Nizar Virani and Ouma v Nairobi City Council. The pleaded claim for the medical report was supported by a receipt, and was therefore awarded in full.
Legal principles established
#- A claim for each particular type of special damage must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- A police abstract is prima facie evidence of the facts reported to the police and, absent contrary evidence, may be relied upon; a conviction for careless driving recorded in it is conclusive evidence of guilt under section 47A of the Evidence Act
- As between a passenger and the owners/drivers of the vehicles in a collision, liability is 100% joint and several unless the passenger's own negligence is proved; res ipsa loquitur applies where the injured person was a passenger
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing suit, while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant on liability, the defendant being held 100% vicariously liable for the accident
- 2.General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of Ksh. 200,000/= awarded
- 3.Special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= awarded
- 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
- 6.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a tort claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident (Civil Procedure Act); no specific provision pleaded in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obado v Crown Bus Service Limited (Civil Case 122 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/18/eng@2026-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.