Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistratePartially AllowedBungoma CMCC No. of 2025 (Plaint dated 14th January 2025)· [2026] KEMC 543 (KLR)

Nyongesa v Ndoli (Civil Case E017 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 543 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court (Bungoma)
9 April 2026
TOT.O. Omono
3,636 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court split fault equally between two drivers in a road accident because neither side could prove who was actually to blame.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, a motorcycle rider, sued the Defendant for negligence arising from an accident on 2nd August 2024 along the Bungoma–Kanduyi road, alleging the Defendant's stalled motor vehicle suddenly turned into the road without indicating. The Defendant denied the accident particulars or, in the alternative, blamed the Plaintiff for failing to keep a safe distance. The court identified three issues: liability, quantum, and whether interest on general damages amounts to double compensation. On liability, the court found the evidence to be the Plaintiff's word against the Defendant's. It rejected the Defendant's investigation report as biased because the investigator never interviewed the Plaintiff and relied on an uncertified OB extract without a certificate of electronic evidence. Regretting the absence of the investigating officer's testimony, the sketch plan and the inspection reports, the court applied Hussein Omar Farah v Lento Agencies and apportioned liability equally at 50%:50%. On quantum, it found the Plaintiff proved blunt injuries to the forehead, chest and neck, a cut wound to the left cheek, abrasions to both knees and scratches to both legs, and awarded Kshs. 200,000/= in general damages, holding that decisions of courts of concurrent jurisdiction are only persuasive. Special damages were assessed at Kshs. 17,220/=: the Kshs. 8,500/= medical report fee was upheld as within the Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Fees) Rules, 2016, but the Kshs. 5,000/= demand notice was disallowed as legal fees claimable at taxation. The court rejected the Defendant's submission that interest on general damages amounts to double compensation, holding it well founded in law under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. Judgment was entered for a net award of Kshs. 108,610/= after the 50% deduction, with interest on general damages from judgment and on special damages from filing, and costs to the Plaintiff subject to the liability ratio.

Key legal issues

#
01

Liability

Holding

Liability apportioned equally at 50%:50% because the evidence was the Plaintiff's word against the Defendant's and was barely adequate to apportion liability otherwise.

Reasoning

The investigator's report was biased, based only on the Defendant's version, and relied on an uncertified OB extract without a certificate of electronic evidence. The investigating officer did not testify and the sketch plan and inspection reports were absent. Applying Hussein Omar Farah v Lento Agencies, where there is no concrete evidence to determine blame between two drivers, both are held equally to blame.

p. 5
02

General damages for pain and suffering

Holding

Kshs. 200,000/= awarded for multiple soft tissue injuries, guided principally by Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Omwoyo.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff proved blunt injuries to forehead, chest and neck, a cut wound to the left cheek, abrasions to both knees and scratches to both legs. Comparable awards ranged between Kshs. 150,000/= and Kshs. 200,000/=. The court held it is not bound by decisions of concurrent jurisdiction, rejecting the Defendant's argument pegged to the award in the Wangila case.

p. 9
03

Special damages

Holding

Kshs. 17,220/= pleaded and proved; the Kshs. 5,000/= demand notice claim disallowed as legal fees; the Kshs. 8,500/= medical report fee held lawful under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Fees) Rules, 2016.

Reasoning

The Defendant conceded the receipts proved most items but disputed the medical report fee and demand notice. The receipt showed Kshs. 8,500/= was for the medical report only, which falls within the Rules' range of Kshs. 6,000/= to Kshs. 60,000/=. The demand notice claim, per Kwendo, is legal fees awardable at taxation.

p. 11
04

Interest on general damages as double compensation

Holding

Rejected; interest on general damages is lawful and discretionary under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, running from the date of judgment.

Reasoning

The Defendant did not substantiate how interest on general damages amounts to double compensation or violates Article 159(2)(a). Interest compensates the decree holder for delay in realizing judgment fruits and encourages expeditious settlement, consistent with Article 159(2)(b) and Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there is no concrete evidence to determine who is to blame between two drivers, both should be held equally to blame.
  • Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards.
  • A demand notice is a claim for legal fees awardable at taxation, not recoverable as special damages.
  • A court is not bound by decisions of other magistrates or courts of concurrent jurisdiction; they are only of persuasive value.
  • A party invoking constitutional or statutory provisions must set out with precision how the impugned action violates them.
  • Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the Defendant: liability 50%:50%; General Damages Kshs. 200,000/=; Special Damages Kshs. 17,220/=; grand award Kshs. 217,220/= less 50% yielding net award of Kshs. 108,610/=
  2. 2.General Damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
  3. 3.Special Damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing suit till payment in full
  4. 4.Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit, subject to the ratio of liability between the parties

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(a), 159(2)(b)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 26
  • Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Professional Fees) Rules, 2016Fees for preparing medical and dental legal reports (Legal Notice 131 of 2016)

Cases cited (10)

  • Hussein Omar Farah v Lento Agencies
    C.A Nairobi, Civil Appeal No. 34/2005 [2006] eKLR
  • Stanley Maore vs Geoffrey Mwenda
    (2004) eKLR
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Omwoyo
    (Civil Appeal E082 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5120 (KLR)
  • Felix Wangila v Wycliffe Wanami Ndoli
    (Bungoma CMC CC No. E360 of 2024)
  • Surian Enterprises Ltd v Mary Bahati Peter
    (Civil Appeal No. E199 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 20426 (KLR)
  • Oloo v Arika & another
    (Civil Appeal E080 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 2889 (KLR)
  • Omondi vs. Anzofu
    [2024] KEHC 2675 (KLR)
  • Kwendo v Attorney General & another
    (Civil Appeal 11 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 1530 (KLR)
  • Jane Wanjiku Wambui v Anthony Kigamba Hato & 3 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General
    (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2012, UGSC 4)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a road traffic accident negligence suit (not expressly cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyongesa v Ndoli (Civil Case E017 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 543 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Bungoma CMCC No. of 2025 (Plaint dated 14th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/543/eng@2026-04-09

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