Sanghani & 2 others t/a RK Sanghani v Trakana Mombasa Ltd (Civil Case E142 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a Ksh. 7.6 million accident claim solely because one plaintiff lacked written authority to sue on behalf of the others.
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 suit is competent
- 2.Whether the defendant's driver is liable for the accident and thus to blame
- 3.Whether the plaintiffs suffered loss and damage as a result of the alleged accident
- 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as against the defendant and if so, the nature and quantum thereof
- 5.Who should bear the costs of this suit?
Key legal issues
#Competency of the suit for lack of written authority by co-plaintiffs
The suit is incompetent; the 2nd plaintiff had locus standi in his own right but no written authority to act for the other plaintiffs.
Order 1 rule 13 and Order 4 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules require written authority filed in court where one plaintiff swears the verifying affidavit for others. Superior court authority (Research International, Luke Cheruiyot, Moses Onchiri) affirms this. The objection surfaced during cross-examination and in submissions; the plaintiffs never sought leave to cure it. At judgment stage, curing the defect would mean reopening a heard case, prejudicing the defence. Article 159(2)(d) does not save a defect touching capacity and jurisdiction.
Liability for the road traffic accident (obiter, assuming competence wrong)
The defendant's driver was 100% liable and the defendant vicariously liable; photographs did not disprove the eyewitness and investigating officer.
PW2's testimony that the defendant's vehicle overtook and veered into his lane was corroborated by PW4, the investigating officer. Photographs taken by a non-witness could not show the point of impact and could not disprove an eyewitness (s.143 Evidence Act). The defendant called no driver or eyewitness to rebut. Presumption of agency applied absent evidence the driver acted outside employment (Morgan v Launchbury; Kansa v Solanki).
Quantum of special damages (hypothetical)
Loss of user of Ksh. 900,000/= not proved; but pre-accident value less salvage plus receipts would yield Ksh. 6,713,310/= had the suit succeeded.
Special damages must be strictly proved (Hahn v Singh; David Bagine; Unga Limited). No receipts, contracts or records supported the loss of user claim. For a written-off vehicle, compensation is pre-accident value (Ksh. 7,000,000) less salvage (Ksh. 300,000); the assessor's fees of Ksh. 12,760/= and copy of records Ksh. 550/= were supported by receipts.
Legal principles established
#- Where there are several plaintiffs, one of them may only swear the verifying affidavit or act for the others if a written authority signed by the others is filed; without it the plaint is incompetent.
- The defect of missing written authority is curable if raised before hearing, but at judgment stage it becomes fatal since curing it would require reopening the case.
- Special damages, including loss of user, must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant
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/special damages claim (no specific provision stated)
Relief refused
#Special damages of Ksh. 7,613,310/= (pre-accident value less salvage, loss of user, assessor's fees, copy of records)
The suit was found incompetent because the 2nd plaintiff lacked written authority from his co-plaintiffs to act and swear the verifying affidavit on their behalf; additionally, loss of user was not strictly proved.
Interest on special damages at court rates
Follows from dismissal of the suit on competence grounds; the court indicated it would otherwise have awarded Ksh. 6,713,310/=.
Costs
Costs of the suit to the defendant
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.
The foregoing implies that where there are several plaintiffs and only one of them swears the verifying affidavit without a written authority filed with the verifying affidavit, the suit or plaint is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
The issue of locus standi is not a mere procedural technicality but a substantive question that goes to the root of the Court's jurisdiction.
In summary, I hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities as against the defendant. The reason, as already indicated is that the suit is incompetent. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit is DISMISSED with costs to the defendant.
Photographs which do not clearly show the point of impact cannot disprove the testimony of an eye witness.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal numbering anomaly: the judgment numbers a quoted passage under Orioki as '31.' although paragraph 31 already exists earlier in the judgment.
Date of delivery (27th April 2026) post-dates the filing date of 2022 by an unusually long period and bears an implausible future date; recorded as printed.
The court states the plaintiffs failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities, yet finds the driver 100% liable on the same evidence; the dismissal rests solely on competency, creating an apparent internal tension.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sanghani & 2 others t/a RK Sanghani v Trakana Mombasa Ltd (Civil Case E142 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 9/9/2022, filed 15/9/2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/108/eng@2026-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.