Shikuku v Hamon Engineering Ltd & another (Civil Suit 1286 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 210 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court awarded a boda boda rider Kshs. 357,637 after being hit from behind, holding the vehicle's owner and driver fully liable even though they never showed up.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability of the defendants for the road traffic accident
The 2nd Defendant drove negligently and was 100% liable; the 1st Defendant was vicariously liable as owner
The plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony, corroborated by the Police Abstract, established that Motor Vehicle KDB 122T, owned by the 1st Defendant and driven by the 2nd Defendant, rammed into the plaintiff's motorcycle from behind. Applying the presumption in Kenya Bus Services Limited v Humphrey and Chesoni Ag. JA's holding in Mwona Ndoo v Kakuzi Ltd, the court found the 2nd Defendant was driving as servant or agent of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant was driving at high speed and could not control the vehicle.
Quantum of general damages
Kshs. 350,000.00 awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
The court applied the principles in Butt v Khan and Kemfro Africa Ltd that awards must not be entirely erroneous and comparable injuries should attract comparable awards. It found Poa Link Services v Sindani Boaz Bonzemo, where Kshs. 350,000.00 was awarded for blunt chest injuries, bruises and soft tissue injuries, to be the most comparable authority, adjusting for the absence of fractures or permanent incapacity and the effect of inflation.
Special damages
Kshs. 7,637.00 awarded as specially pleaded and strictly proved
The plaintiff pleaded special damages of Kshs. 7,637.00 comprising Kshs. 3,000 for the medical report, Kshs. 550 for copy of records and Kshs. 4,087 for medical expenses, and produced receipts in proof. The court was satisfied the claim was specifically pleaded and strictly proved as required.
Legal principles established
#- Where it is proved that a car has caused damage by negligence, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a presumption arises that it was driven by a person for whose negligence the owner is responsible
- Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, attract comparable awards
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally
- 2.General damages of Kshs. 350,000.00
- 3.Special damages of Kshs. 7,637.00
- 4.Total award of Kshs. 357,637.00
- 5.Interest on special damages at court rates from the date of filing suit and on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 6.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a tort claim in negligence (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shikuku v Hamon Engineering Ltd & another (Civil Suit 1286 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Suit No 1286 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/210/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.