Kaliti v Swiftstrides Logistics Ltd & another (Civil Case E244 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 65 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a road accident passenger over Ksh. 1 million after finding the driver fully liable and the vehicle's owner vicariously liable.
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 involved in the accident
- 2.Who was to blame for the accident?
- 3.Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered loss as a result of the accident
- 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, the nature and quantum thereof
- 5.Who should bear the costs of this suit?
Key legal issues
#Liability for the road traffic accident
The 2nd defendant was found 100% liable in negligence; the 1st defendant 100% vicariously liable; the plaintiff, a mere passenger, bore no blame
The plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence, corroborated by the police officer, showed the driver drove at high speed, lost control and rammed into the rear of another vehicle. The volenti non fit injuria/unauthorized passenger defence was not pleaded and could not be raised in submissions; unlike the distinguished authority, there was no evidence of notices or company policy prohibiting passengers.
Vicarious liability of the 1st defendant owner
The 1st defendant was held 100% vicariously liable under respondeat superior
The defence admitted the 2nd defendant was the 1st defendant's agent at the material time, and there was no evidence that his actions were unauthorized. Under the Kansa v Solanki presumption, where a car driven by another causes damage by negligence, the owner is presumed responsible absent evidence to the contrary.
Quantum of general damages
Ksh. 950,000/= awarded in general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
Applying established principles from West (H) & Sons v Shepherd and Southern Engineering v Musingi Mutia, and guided by comparable awards of Ksh. 500,000/= in the tibia/fibula fracture authorities but adjusting for inflation and the age of those awards, the court found Ksh. 950,000/= sufficient.
Special damages and future medical expenses
Ksh. 11,050/= special damages and Ksh. 80,000/= future medical expenses awarded
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; attendance fees were disallowed. On future medical expenses, although there is divided Court of Appeal opinion on their characterization, the claim was pleaded, medically evidenced and estimated, and the court applied the Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Fees) Rules bearing in mind inflation.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving negligence lies on the plaintiff, who must adduce evidence and not merely adorn the plaint with particulars
- An unpleaded defence cannot be raised by way of submissions
- A rebuttable presumption of agency arises where a motor vehicle is driven by a person other than the owner
- Future medical expenses are awardable where pleaded and supported by evidence and an estimate, guided by the Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Fees) Rules
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing, 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. 950,000/= against the defendants
- 2.Special damages of Ksh. 11,050/= as pleaded and proved
- 3.Future medical expenses of Ksh. 80,000/= for removal of the implant
- 4.Interest on general damages at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full
- 5.Interest on special damages and future medical expenses from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree
- 6.Costs of the suit 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 negligence claim arising from a road traffic accident (Tort)
Relief refused
#Special damages of Ksh. 146,050/= as pleaded (only Ksh. 11,050/= awarded)
Attendance fees for doctor and police officer cannot be termed as special damages and are claimable as costs; only Ksh. 11,050/= was pleaded and proved by receipts
Damages for future earning capacity
The claim was pleaded but no evidence was led and no submissions made; it was treated as abandoned
Costs
The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit
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 2nd defendant 100% liable in negligence and for the accident. There is no basis for holding the plaintifi liable in any manner. He was a mere passenger who had no control of the motor vehicle.
The defence was not even pleaded in the statement of defence. It cannot be raised by way of submissions.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
General damages for pain, sufiering and loss of amenities...........Ksh. 950,000/=
Consequently, interest on general damages shall accrue at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full and on Special damages and future medical expenses, from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment/decree.
Issues in the judgment
#The disposition does not expressly state who bears costs, though paragraph 52 states 'The plaintifi is also awarded interest on the damages as well as costs of the suit.'
The judgment is dated 17th March 2026 for a suit filed 4/10/2024 over an accident of 10/8/2023 - the date appears to be in the future relative to typical filing timelines but is internally consistent as printed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaliti v Swiftstrides Logistics Ltd & another (Civil Case E244 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 65 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/65/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.