Bakari v Tsuma & another (Civil Case E1583 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 175 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court awarded a pedestrian Kshs. 882,550 after a ferry accident, holding that defendants who present no evidence automatically lose on negligence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Occurrence of the accident
The accident occurred as pleaded, proved on a balance of probabilities
The plaintiff testified he was disembarking from the ferry when vehicle KBF 648W ran over his left leg. His account was corroborated by the police abstract, P3 form, treatment records, X-ray report, medical report and the evidence of PW2. The defendants tendered no evidence to challenge occurrence.
Liability and contributory negligence
The plaintiff proved negligence against the driver; defendants vicariously liable at 100%
The plaintiff was a pedestrian disembarking from a ferry with priority under ferry safety rules; police investigations blamed the driver. The defence alleged contributory negligence but adduced no evidence, so the allegations remained mere pleadings. Applying Nandwa v Kenya Kazi Ltd, the burden shifted to the defence and was not discharged.
Ownership of the motor vehicle
Ownership and responsibility for the vehicle were established on a balance of probabilities
An NTSA search showed KBF 648W registered to the 2nd Defendant; no contrary search was produced. The 1st Defendant, pleaded as beneficial and/or insured owner, tendered no evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case.
Injuries sustained
The plaintiff sustained the pleaded injuries, classified as Grievous Harm, with 15% permanent disability
The medical evidence was consistent and unchallenged, comprising treatment records, X-ray report, P3 form and the medical report of Dr. Darius Kiema. The P3 form classified the injuries as Grievous Harm and Dr. Kiema assessed permanent disability at 15%.
Quantum of damages
General damages of Kshs. 850,000/=, future medical expenses of Kshs. 30,000/= and special damages of Kshs. 2,550/=
Comparing with Chiba Tim Limited & Another v Ruguru (Kshs. 700,000/= for comparable injuries), the plaintiff's injuries were materially more severe given the 15% permanent disability, long-term complications and reduced earning capacity, and the plaintiff was a 71-year-old mason. Future medical expenses and special damages were specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Legal principles established
#- Where a plaintiff establishes facts raising a prima facie inference of negligence, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer an explanation sufficient to displace that inference
- A defence unsupported by evidence remains mere allegations bereft of evidentiary value
- Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards while taking inflation and the unique facts of each case into account
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Kshs. 882,550/=
- 2.Special damages to attract interest from the date of filing suit
- 3.General damages and future medical expenses to attract interest from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.Plaintiff to have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil suit for damages arising from a road traffic accident (first-instance magistrate court jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bakari v Tsuma & another (Civil Case E1583 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 175 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Case No E1583 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/175/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.