Juma v Auto Mega Limited & another (Civil Case E024 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 665 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proof of injuries and validity of the medical report
The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that she sustained the pleaded injuries; the 2nd Defendant's attempt to impeach the medical report on the basis of a misdated P3 form failed, and a trauma surgeon was competent to opine on psychological trauma
The court read the P3 form and found it was not dated 3rd December 2024 as the 2nd Defendant alleged, so the impeachment basis collapsed. Dr. Ekesa's letterhead showed he was a specialist general and trauma surgeon, and the court held a trauma surgeon has adequate skill to assess psychological trauma from an accident. The 2nd Defendant therefore failed to impeach the injury evidence.
Quantum of general damages for pain and suffering
An award of Kshs. 100,000/= was appropriate for soft tissue injuries, guided by comparable recent awards and inflation trends
Guided by Stanley Maore vs Geoffrey Mwenda on comparable injuries receiving comparable awards, the court reviewed recent comparable awards (Makami v Obong'o; FM v JNM; Asad Motors; Ondicho v Mosigisi) and selected the most recent comparable award of Kshs. 80,000/=, adjusting to Kshs. 100,000/= to account for inflation since April 2025.
Future medical expenses - proof
The Plaintiff pleaded and proved the need for future medical expenses; receipts are not indispensable since painkillers are commonly bought over the counter
Applying Tracom Limited v Hassan Mohamed Adan, once future medical expenses are pleaded and the need proved, the exact sum need not be pleaded. The medical report showed the need for anti-inflammatory agents and psychosocial support, and the Plaintiff testified she still used painkillers. The court rejected the insistence on receipts and treatment notes as a matter of public notoriety in the jurisdiction.
Special damages
Special damages of Kshs. 4,550/= were both pleaded and proved by receipts
The Plaintiff pleaded Kshs. 4,000/= for the medical report and Kshs. 550/= for the copy of records, and produced receipts (Pexh.4 and Pexh.6) for both amounts, satisfying the requirement that special damages be specifically pleaded and proved.
Legal principles established
#- Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards
- A claim for future medical expenses must be specifically pleaded and proved, but once pleaded with the need for further medication, the exact amount need not be specially stated
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered jointly and severally against the Defendants with liability apportioned 80%:20% in favour of the Plaintiff
- 2.General damages of Kshs. 100,000/= awarded
- 3.Future medical expenses of Kshs. 10,000/= awarded
- 4.Special damages of Kshs. 4,550/= awarded
- 5.Grand award of Kshs. 114,550/= less 20%, net award Kshs. 91,640/=
- 6.General damages and future medical expenses to accrue interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 7.Special damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing the suit till payment in full
- 8.Plaintiff awarded the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance tort claim for damages arising from a road traffic accident, heard by the magistrates' court under its civil jurisdiction (specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Juma v Auto Mega Limited & another (Civil Case E024 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 665 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Case No E024 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/665/eng@2026-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.