Edward v Macharia & another (Civil Case 969 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 387 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court awarded a road accident victim over Kshs. 1.6 million after the defendants offered no evidence, showing defendants who stay silent risk full liability.
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 defendants were liable for the road traffic accident of 19 November 2019
- 2.Whether the plaintiff proved the injuries pleaded
- 3.The quantum of general damages for pain and suffering
- 4.Whether special damages were pleaded and proved
- 5.Whether an award for future medical expenses was justified
Key legal issues
#Liability for the accident
Defendants held 100% liable
The plaintiff testified and adopted his statement and exhibits blaming the 2nd defendant's careless driving. The defendants adduced no evidence; their only exhibit was a medical report. The police officer was not the investigating officer, so her cross-examination blaming both drivers was report-based hearsay given less weight. The plaintiff's unchallenged evidence discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.
Weight of non-investigating officer's evidence
Hearsay evidence of a police officer who was not the investigating officer carries less probative value
PW2 confirmed the 2nd defendant was charged with a traffic offence but was not the investigating officer. In cross-examination she blamed drivers of both vehicles. Following Alfred Mutual Ndutu v Peter Musau Wambua, such an officer's account is not evidence of fact since he neither witnessed the accident nor concluded from investigations.
Quantum of general damages
Kshs. 1,400,000/- awarded for pain and suffering
The court applied the comparable-injuries principle from West and Sons v Shepherd, noting no comparable authority was pointed out by the parties. Its own research found Kipkoech v Mella where similar injuries attracted Kshs. 1,200,000/-. Factoring inflation, it enhanced the award to Kshs. 1,400,000/-.
Special damages and future medical expenses
Kshs. 133,250/- special damages and Kshs. 100,000/- future medical expenses awarded
Special damages must be pleaded and proved by receipts. Medical receipts proved Kshs. 132,700/-, the NTSA invoice proved the KRA search item, but no receipt for the medical report was found. Both medical reports agreed future medical expenses of Kshs. 100,000/- for removal of nailing once the fracture united.
Legal principles established
#- Evidence of a police officer who was not the investigating officer and never visited the scene is hearsay and carries less probative value
- Where a defendant fails to call evidence, the plaintiff's evidence remains uncontroverted and unchallenged
- Special damages must be both pleaded and proved, usually through receipts
- In negligence the burden of proof lies on the party alleging, on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered against the defendants jointly and/or severally in favour of the plaintiff for Kshs. 1,400,000/- general damages for pain and suffering
- 2.Kshs. 133,250/- special damages awarded against the defendants jointly and/or severally
- 3.Kshs. 100,000/- awarded as costs of future medical expenses
- 4.Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit and interest
- 5.45 days stay of execution granted as prayed by the defendants' counsel
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Pecuniary jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over civil claims arising from a road traffic accident
Relief refused
#Special damages claimed of Kshs. 138,550/- in full
Only amounts pleaded and proved by receipts were awarded; medical receipts proved Kshs. 132,700/- and no receipt for the medical report was found
Future medical expenses claimed of Kshs. 300,000/-
Both medical reports agreed on Kshs. 100,000/- as future medical expenses
Costs
Plaintiff gets the costs of this suit and an interest.
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.
Judgment is therefore hereby entered against the defendants herein jointly and or severally, and in favor of the plaintiff herein for Kshs. 1,400,000/- being general damages for pain and suffering, Kshs. 133,250/- being special damages and Kshs. 100,000/- being costs of future medical expenses.
Plaintiff also gets the costs of this suit and an interest.
This leads to the irresistible conclusion that the Defendants were 100% liable for the accident from the evidence adduced in court.
comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards
45 days stay granted as prayed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 28 July 2026 yet the accident occurred on 19 November 2019 and the plaint is described as dated 09/08/2019, an apparent internal inconsistency in dates (a plaint dated after the accident is normal, but the 2026 delivery date in a 2019 case is unusually far in the future and may be a typographical error).
The plaintiff prayed for general and special damages of Kshs. 138,550/= but the claim as structured in the plaint separates special damages (Kshs. 138,550) from general damages, creating ambiguity in how the prayer is expressed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Edward v Macharia & another (Civil Case 969 of 2019) [2026] KEMC 387 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Case 969 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/387/eng@2026-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.