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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Bungoma Magistrates' Court civil suit)· [2026] KEMC 559 (KLR)

Murefu v Abdulahi & another (Civil Case E0268 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 559 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court (Senior Resident Magistrate)
26 March 2026
TOT.O. Omono
2,121 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court awarded a passenger Kshs. 157,650 after a rear-end collision, holding the defendants 100% liable because they offered no defence or evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, a passenger, sued the Defendants for general and special damages arising from a road traffic accident on 05th April 2025 at around 1930hrs along the Bungoma–Webuye road near Sikata bridge, in which the Defendants' motor vehicle KAX 994 J/ZC 6849 hit from behind the motor vehicle (KBS 963 W) in which he was travelling, causing him multiple soft tissue injuries. He pleaded the Defendants' and their driver's negligence and invoked res ipsa loquitur. The Defendants filed no defence and called no evidence despite service. The court framed two issues: liability and quantum. On liability, it held the Plaintiff's direct, uncontroverted evidence as a passenger was sufficient to establish negligence, applying authority that a driver who hits another vehicle from behind bears a prima facie case of negligence. Since the Defendants failed to adduce evidence within their knowledge or control, the court drew an adverse inference and held them 100% liable. On quantum, uncontroverted medical evidence proved moderate multiple soft tissue injuries; applying the comparable-injuries principle, the court awarded Kshs. 150,000/= in general damages, rejecting both parties' suggested comparables. Of the pleaded special damages of Kshs. 18,810/=, only Kshs. 7,650/= was proved by legible receipts and awarded. Judgment was entered against the Defendants jointly and severally for Kshs. 157,650/=, with interest on general damages from judgment and on special damages from filing suit, plus costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff's evidence established negligence against the Defendants

Holding

The Defendants were held 100% liable. The Plaintiff's direct uncontroverted evidence that his vehicle was hit from behind established a prima facie case of negligence which the Defendants failed to dislodge, having adduced no evidence.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff, a passenger, gave direct evidence under section 63(2) of the Evidence Act that the Defendants' vehicle hit his from behind. Such evidence is deemed sufficient to establish negligence in road traffic cases. Hitting a vehicle from behind creates a prima facie case of negligence against the following driver. The Defendants filed no defence and called no witnesses; the court drew an adverse inference that evidence within their control would have been adverse to them. The evidential burden shifted to the Defendants, who failed to dislodge it.

p. 6
02

Quantum of general damages for moderate multiple soft tissue injuries

Holding

Kshs. 150,000/= awarded, applying the comparable-injuries principle and recent comparable awards

Reasoning

The court found the Plaintiff sustained moderate multiple soft tissue injuries proved on a balance of probabilities by uncontroverted medical evidence. It applied the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards, rejecting the Defendants' reliance on dated 2019–2021 authorities and the Plaintiff's authorities involving more serious injuries. It instead adopted awards of Kshs. 150,000/= in Surian Enterprises Ltd v Mary Bahati Peter and Oloo v Arika & another, where injuries were almost similar.

p. 8
03

Whether the pleaded special damages of Kshs. 18,810/= were proved

Holding

Only Kshs. 7,650/= proved by legible receipts and awarded

Reasoning

Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. The Plaintiff pleaded Kshs. 18,810/=, but some supporting receipts were illegible. Only the legible receipts — Kshs. 5,000/= for the medical report, Kshs. 550/= for a copy of records, and Kshs. 7,650/= from Nabuala Medical Centre — proved the claim. The court accordingly awarded Kshs. 7,650/= under this head.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Direct, uncontroverted evidence by a passenger on how an accident occurred is sufficient to establish negligence, and a driver who hits another vehicle from behind bears a prima facie case of negligence which he must rebut with evidence
  • Where a party fails to adduce evidence within their knowledge or control, the court may draw an adverse inference that such evidence would have been adverse to that party
  • Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards
  • A passenger in a motor vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident unless it is shown, for example, that he failed to fasten a seat belt or attempted to jump out of a moving vehicle

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the Defendants jointly and severally with liability at 100%
  2. 2.General damages of Kshs. 150,000/=
  3. 3.Special damages of Kshs. 7,650/= (total award Kshs. 157,650/=)
  4. 4.General damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
  5. 5.Special damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing suit till payment in full
  6. 6.Plaintiff awarded the costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a road traffic accident claim (not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Murefu v Abdulahi & another (Civil Case E0268 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Bungoma Magistrates' Court civil suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/559/eng@2026-03-26

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