Mueni v China Road & Bridge Corporation (CRBC) (Civil Case 518 of 2016) [2026] KEMC 19 (KLR)

The plaintiff testified that he was employed by the defendant and produced a certificate of employment; there was no contrary evidence as the defendant called no witness. Under section 143 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, so the plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony sufficed to establish employment, being on duty and the occurrence of the accident.

An employer must take reasonable steps to lessen danger to employees. There was no evidence of a safe system of work or that safety gear was provided and declined. The injury was caused by an act of a fellow employee in the course of employment, establishing a causal link; the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria was neither pleaded nor proved.

The doctrine requires proof that the claimant had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk and voluntarily agreed to accept it. The defendant did not plead the doctrine, called no witness, and there was no evidence the plaintiff declined safety gear that had been provided. The unequal power relationship between employer and labourer weighed against the defence.

Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards, guided by moderation and inflation. The plaintiff relied on authorities suggesting Ksh. 200,000/= while the defendant proposed Ksh. 50,000/=. Considering an analogous award reduced to Ksh. 150,000/= in 2016, its age and inflation, the court found Ksh. 120,000/= sufficient for a single outpatient-treated injury.

Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The plaintiff pleaded Ksh. 3,000/= for the medical report and produced supporting documents; the defendant had no issue with the special damages claimed. The court found the amount proven as pleaded and awarded it, with interest from the date of filing suit.