Mbaaya v Crown Bus Services Limited (Civil Case 272 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 64 (KLR)

The plaintiff testified and produced a police abstract confirming the accident and his status as a passenger. The defendant called no witnesses and filed no submissions, so the evidence stood uncontroverted. Unchallenged evidence of the accident and passenger status was sufficient to establish those facts on a balance of probabilities.

The plaintiff produced records from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles showing the defendant as registered owner as at 13/8/2019, and the police abstract indicated the defendant's ownership at the time of the accident. The defendant's representative did not attend court to deny ownership, so the evidence was unrebutted.

The police abstract indicated the driver was charged and convicted of careless driving and fined Ksh. 30,000/=. Under section 47A of the Evidence Act, the conviction is conclusive proof of the offence absent an appeal. The defendant led no evidence to counter the abstract, and as a passenger the plaintiff bore no blame; the court relied on Court of Appeal authority on uncontroverted police abstracts.

The court applied the doctrine of respondeat superior and the rebuttable presumption of agency under Kansa v Solanki, holding that where a vehicle causes damage by negligence, a presumption arises that it was driven by a person for whose negligence the owner is responsible. That the driver was in the course of employment was not denied in evidence.

The court applied established principles that damages compensate rather than enrich the victim, that comparable injuries should receive comparable awards, and considered inflation. The plaintiff's authorities involved more serious injuries except Kiptoo v Wafula; the court's own comparators (Ochola v Owuor and Pascal v Ouko, each reduced to Ksh. 150,000/=) were considered dated, justifying Ksh. 200,000/=.

Relying on Nizar Virani and Ouma v Nairobi City Council, the court reiterated that each type of special damage must be pleaded and strictly proved by receipts. The claim for the police abstract was not proven and was disallowed, while the remaining pleaded and proved items were awarded.

Guided by section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act and authority including Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General, the court held that interest on special damages runs from the date of loss while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment, as general damages are only ascertained in the judgment.