Matere & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Daniel Wafula Kundu (Deceased)) v Siro (Civil Case E499 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 706 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court awarded a family nearly KShs. 2 million after a matatu fatally struck a pedestrian, holding the driver fully liable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant was liable for the fatal accident
The Defendant was 100% liable. The investigating officer's account of the driver's police report was hearsay of no evidential value, and the Defendant's own report could not be used to blame the deceased. The credible, unshaken direct testimony of PW2 established that the matatu knocked down the deceased.
DW1 admitted he neither investigated the accident nor visited the scene, so his reliance on DW2's police report was hearsay. The court found it inconceivable that the driver's self-incriminating report could shift blame to the deceased. PW2's account that the matatu diverted to pick up the deceased and struck him was direct evidence from a witness with no demonstrated interest, corroborated by his accurate description of the vehicle and direction of travel. As a driver of a lethal machine, the Defendant owed a higher duty of care which was breached.
Proof of dependants without birth or marriage certificates
The assistant chief's letter sufficiently proved the deceased's dependants (wife, father, four children).
The Defendant argued that absent a marriage certificate and birth certificates, dependency was unproven. Relying on Tipper Hauliers Ltd v Gladys Nanjala Namulata, the court held that a chief's letter authenticates dependants, as many Kenyans lack birth certificates but are known to local administration. The Defendant did not controvert the letter's contents, so dependency was proved on a balance of probabilities.
Method of assessing loss of dependency where income is unproven
A global award of Kshs. 1,500,000/= was appropriate since the multiplier approach would be speculative.
PW2 conceded there was no proof the deceased earned Kshs. 40,000/= monthly, and the death certificate was silent on occupation. Guided by Mwanzia Ngalali Mutua (as approved in Albert Odawa) and Moses Mairua Muchiri, the court held the multiplier approach must yield where the multiplicand is not ascertainable without speculation. Comparing Kibe & another v Macharia (global award of Kshs. 1,300,000/= for a 42-year-old with a wife and young children), and factoring the passage of time and overlap with Law Reform Act benefits, the court awarded Kshs. 1,500,000/=.
Admissibility of a special damages receipt lacking stamp duty
The receipts proved the pleaded special damages of Kshs. 228,050/= notwithstanding the stamp duty objection.
Relying on Paul N. Njoroge v Abdul Sabuni Sabonyo and the Stallion Insurance line of authority, the court held that non-compliance with the Stamp Duty Act does not render a receipt inadmissible; the party must first be given an opportunity to pay duty and penalty. Further, it is the receiver of the money who owes the duty, not the plaintiffs, and the court had not afforded such an opportunity.
Legal principles established
#- The mere fact that a person's name does not appear in a police abstract does not mean they did not witness the accident; direct eyewitness testimony may be believed even if the witness is not listed in the abstract.
- A driver owes other road users a high duty of care because a motor vehicle is a lethal machine.
- A chief's letter is sufficient proof of a deceased's dependants unless controverted by credible evidence; birth certificates are not mandatory.
- Where the multiplicand cannot be ascertained with precision, a court may make a global award for loss of dependency rather than insisting on the multiplier approach.
- A receipt for special damages cannot be disregarded solely for want of stamp duty; the party must first be given an opportunity to pay the duty and penalty.
Court orders
#- 1.Liability found against the Defendant at 100%
- 2.General damages under the Fatal Accidents Act: loss of dependency Kshs. 1,500,000/= (global award)
- 3.Damages under the Law Reform Act: loss of expectation of life Kshs. 100,000/=; pain and suffering Kshs. 50,000/=
- 4.Loss of consortium: Kshs. 100,000/=
- 5.Special damages: Kshs. 228,050/=
- 6.Total award of Kshs. 1,978,050/= entered against the Defendant jointly and severally
- 7.General damages to accrue interest at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full
- 8.Special damages to accrue interest at court rate from date of filing suit until payment in full
- 9.Plaintiffs awarded costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a fatal accident negligence claim; jurisdiction admitted by the Defendant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matere & another (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Daniel Wafula Kundu (Deceased)) v Siro (Civil Case E499 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 706 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/706/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.