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· [2026] KEMC 717 (KLR)

Makhanu v Abdulahi & another (Civil Case E266 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 717 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court
26 March 2026
TOT.O. Omono
1,834 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court ruled a rear-end driver 100% liable after he offered no evidence, awarding the injured motorist Kshs. 86,740 plus costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Dickson Wanyonyi Makhanu, sued the Defendants for general and special damages arising from a road traffic accident on 5th April 2025 along the Bungoma–Webuye road near Sikata bridge, in which the Defendants' motor vehicle KAX 994 J/ZC 6849 hit his motor vehicle KBS 963 W from behind, causing moderate soft tissue injuries. He pleaded the Defendants' negligence and invoked res ipsa loquitur. The Defendants, though served with the Amended Plaint, neither filed an Amended Statement of Defence nor called any witnesses. The court framed two issues: liability and quantum. On liability, it held that the Plaintiff's uncontroverted direct eyewitness evidence, falling under section 63(2) of the Evidence Act, established a prima facie case of negligence, since a driver who rear-ends another vehicle is presumed at fault (following Atanga v Rojeh, Orioki v Kevian Kenya Limited, and Njuguna v Chogo). The evidential burden shifted to the Defendants to rebut this with evidence, not submissions; their failure drew an adverse inference under section 112 of the Evidence Act per Kenya Akiba Micro Financing and Kimotho v KCB. The court found the Defendants 100% liable. On quantum, applying the comparable-injuries principle from Stanley Maore v Geoffrey Mwenda, the court awarded Kshs. 80,000/= in general damages, aligned with Ondicho v Mosigisi, rejecting both parties' authorities as inapposite. Special damages of Kshs. 6,740/= were proved by legible receipts out of Kshs. 18,810/= pleaded. Judgment was entered jointly and severally for a total of Kshs. 86,740/=, with interest at court rates on general damages from judgment and on special damages from filing suit, plus costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Liability of a driver who hits another vehicle from behind

Holding

Defendants held 100% liable; the prima facie negligence from a rear-end collision was not dislodged because the Defendants led no evidence.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff gave uncontroverted direct eyewitness evidence that his vehicle was hit from behind. Following Atanga v Rojeh and Orioki v Kevian Kenya Limited, a rear-end collision creates a prima facie case of negligence. The evidential burden then shifted to the Defendants, who called no witnesses; the court drew an adverse inference under section 112 of the Evidence Act that their evidence would have been adverse to them.

p. 4
02

Whether submissions can substitute for evidence

Holding

No - submissions are not evidence and cannot dislodge a prima facie case.

Reasoning

The court emphasized that the Defendants' burden to rebut negligence had to be discharged through evidence within their knowledge or control, not through written submissions, however eloquent or rich in authorities.

p. 3
03

Quantum of general damages for moderate soft tissue injuries

Holding

Kshs. 80,000/= awarded, following a comparable recent award in Ondicho v Mosigisi.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff's medical evidence proved moderate soft tissue injuries. The court applied the comparable-injuries principle, rejected both parties' authorities as inapposite (Defendant's being dated 2019/2021 and Plaintiff's involving graver injuries), and adopted an award of Kshs. 80,000/= for similar injuries in Ondicho v Mosigisi.

p. 4
04

Proof of special damages

Holding

Only Kshs. 6,740/= of the pleaded Kshs. 18,810/= was proved by legible receipts.

Reasoning

Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. Some receipts were illegible; only legible receipts for the medical report (Kshs. 5,000/=), copy of records (Kshs. 550/=), and hospital medical expenses (Kshs. 1,190/=) proved the pleaded special damages, totalling Kshs. 6,740/=.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A driver who hits another vehicle from behind bears a prima facie case of negligence which he must rebut with evidence, not submissions.
  • Where a party fails to lead evidence within their knowledge or control, the court may draw an adverse inference.
  • Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the Defendants jointly and severally with liability at 100%
  2. 2.General damages of Kshs. 80,000/= awarded
  3. 3.Special damages of Kshs. 6,740/= awarded (total award Kshs. 86,740/=)
  4. 4.General damages to accrue interest at court rate from date of judgment till payment in full
  5. 5.Special damages to accrue interest at court rate from date of filing suit till payment in full
  6. 6.Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over the tort claim (not expressly stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Makhanu v Abdulahi & another (Civil Case E266 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 717 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/717/eng@2026-03-26

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