Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateAllowedNot stated in judgment (Plaint dated 28th November 2022)· [2026] KEMC 490 (KLR)

Devyani Food Industries (Kenya) Ltd (Formerly Sameer Agriculture & Livestock (K) Ltd v Amal Hauliers Limited (Civil Case E1694 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 490 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court
30 July 2026
2,327 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court held a milk transporter 100% liable for damaged goods, confirming insurers can sue transporters to recover what they paid their clients.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant, its contracted carrier, for special damages of Kshs.216,408/- after a consignment of Daima whole milk (684 cartons of 200ml packets and 3,100 cartons of 500ml packets valued at Kshs.1,181,165.42) was damaged in transit from Nairobi to the Plaintiff's distributor, Finsbury Trading Limited, in Mombasa in November-December 2019. The claim was brought under the doctrine of subrogation, Mayfair Insurance Company Limited having indemnified the Plaintiff under a Goods-in-Transit Policy. The Defendant admitted the transportation agreement and the Court's jurisdiction but denied negligence, breach and liability, and challenged subrogation. At the hearing on 20th May 2026 the Plaintiff called two witnesses, an independent loss adjuster (PW1) and Mayfair's Legal Officer (PW2); the Defendant, though served, did not attend, leaving the Plaintiff's evidence uncontroverted. The Court framed four issues: locus standi under subrogation, breach/negligence, proof of special damages, and costs. It held the proceedings properly instituted, the insurer having stepped into the insured's shoes. Expert evidence established no accident occurred and the damage resulted from stacking pressure and the rigours of transport and storage in the Defendant's exclusive custody; the evidential burden shifted to the Defendant, who offered only unproved denials. The Defendant was found 100% liable. The special damages (Kshs.159,858.05 adjusted claim plus Kshs.56,550 adjusters' fees) were specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Interest at court rates was awarded from filing, and costs followed the event.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi under the doctrine of subrogation

Holding

The proceedings are properly before the Court; the insurer having indemnified the Plaintiff, recovery may be pursued in the Plaintiff's name.

Reasoning

PW2 produced the insurance policy, claim approval note, discharge voucher and payment documents proving a valid Goods-in-Transit policy, that the loss occurred during the currency of the policy, and that the insurer settled the adjusted loss of Kshs.159,858.05. The Defendant adduced no evidence beyond its pleading to challenge the policy, settlement or subrogation, so the Court found the suit properly instituted.

p. 7
02

Whether the Defendant was liable for breach of contract and/or negligence

Holding

The Defendant breached its contractual obligations and duty of care as carrier/bailee and was found 100% liable.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff proved delivery of the consignment in good condition and receipt in a damaged state while in the Defendant's exclusive custody. Independent loss adjuster evidence attributed the damage to stacking pressure and the rigours of transport and storage. The Defendant called no evidence, and the evidential burden shifted to it to explain the damage. Pleadings alone are not evidence.

p. 9
03

Whether special damages of Kshs.216,408/= were proved

Holding

The entirety of the special damages claimed (Kshs.159,858.05 adjusted claim plus Kshs.56,550 loss adjusters' fees) was strictly proved and awarded.

Reasoning

The Plaint specifically pleaded Kshs.216,408/=. The Plaintiff produced the policy, claim approval note, final loss adjuster's report, discharge voucher, invoices, receipts and proof of payment. The Defendant neither objected to the documents nor challenged their authenticity, so the Court was satisfied the full amount was proved on a balance of probabilities.

p. 10
04

Interest on the award

Holding

Interest on the special damages at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.

Reasoning

The principal claim is one for special damages, whose loss is ascertainable at filing. The settled position is that interest on special damages runs from the date of filing suit, and the Court so awarded.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • Upon indemnifying an insured, an insurer steps into the shoes of the insured and acquires the insured's rights against the party responsible for the loss (doctrine of subrogation).
  • Pleadings are not evidence; allegations in a defence remain mere assertions unless supported by evidence at trial.
  • Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
  • Interest on special damages ordinarily runs from the date of filing suit because the loss is ascertainable at that point.
  • Once a plaintiff proves goods were delivered in good condition and received damaged while in the defendant's exclusive custody, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to explain the damage.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Liability is entered against the Defendant at 100%.
  2. 2.The Plaintiff is awarded special damages in the sum of Kshs.216,408/=.
  3. 3.The said sum shall attract interest at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
  4. 4.The Plaintiff shall have the costs of the suit.
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly invoked; the Defendant admitted the Court's jurisdiction. Civil claim founded in contract and negligence under general civil law.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Devyani Food Industries (Kenya) Ltd (Formerly Sameer Agriculture & Livestock (K) Ltd v Amal Hauliers Limited (Civil Case E1694 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 490 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Plaint dated 28th November 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/490/eng@2026-07-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.