Enock Romano Moli (Suing through father and next friend Wasibuku Moli Mori) v Godfrey Jacob Mbindi
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a seven-year-old boy Kshs. 617,900 after a driver who hit him failed to prove the crash was unavoidable.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant's driver
- 2.Whether special damages of Kshs. 17,900/= were specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- 3.What amount of general damages is fair and reasonable for the injuries sustained
Key legal issues
#Liability for the road traffic accident
Defendant 100% liable; driver failed to maintain proper lookout and control
The occurrence of the accident and the striking of the seven-year-old minor were undisputed. The driver's account that she 'suddenly found' the child in her path lacked particulars of distance, reaction, braking or horn. The overtaking motorcycle did not absolve her; the question was whether she responded with reasonable care, which the evidence did not demonstrate. No evidence showed the child ran across the road.
Defence of inevitable/unavoidable accident
Defence failed; burden not discharged
The court held it is not sufficient for a driver merely to state the occurrence was sudden; the evidence must demonstrate the accident could not have been avoided notwithstanding reasonable care. The driver gave no sufficient particulars of where the child was first observed, the distance, or any evasive action taken, so the defence was not made out.
Standard of care for a child of tender years
A young child cannot be held to an adult road user's standard; drivers bear heightened responsibility
The court applied the principle that where a motor vehicle collides with a child of tender years, the court must have regard to the child's age and cannot impose the adult standard of care. It relied on Patrick Muli v EM (High Court) on driver responsibility where the pedestrian is a child of tender years, finding no evidence the minor materially contributed to the accident.
Special damages
Kshs. 17,900/= specifically pleaded and proved by receipts
Applying Herbert Hahn v Amrik Singh, the court noted the amount was specifically pleaded and proven by receipts, and the defence in submissions conceded the damages had been proven by way of receipts. The court therefore found special damages strictly proved.
Quantum of general damages
Kshs. 600,000/= awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
The court compared authorities: Koyi v Obanga and DG v Richard Otieno Onyisi (Kshs. 400,000/= awards) were dated and did not reflect inflation; Kipchumba v Esata (Kshs. 500,000/=) involved nearly identical injuries but without residual disability. Given the plaintiff's 10% permanent disability, malunion, limp and tenderness, a modest enhancement to Kshs. 600,000/= was justified.
Legal principles established
#- Once the plaintiff shows the circumstances of a collision, the defendant must provide a satisfactory explanation consistent with the exercise of reasonable care; mere occurrence of an accident does not establish negligence.
- For the defence of inevitable accident to succeed, the evidence must show the accident could not have been avoided despite the exercise of reasonable care.
- A driver must anticipate the presence and movements of pedestrians, particularly children of tender years, and maintain a proper lookout.
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Court orders
#- 1.Liability assessed at 100% in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant
- 2.Special damages of Kshs. 17,900/=
- 3.General damages of Kshs. 600,000/= (total award Kshs. 617,900/=)
- 4.Costs of the suit
- 5.Interest on special damages from the date of filing of suit until payment in full
- 6.Interest on general damages from the date of judgment until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a road traffic negligence claim
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I therefore find that the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant's driver failed to maintain a proper lookout and proper control of the vehicle and that such negligence caused the accident and I find the defendant 100% liable for the accident.
The evidence must demonstrate that the accident could not have been avoided notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable care.
The court must have regard to the child's age and cannot impose upon a young child the same standard of care expected of an adult road user.
The court is required to determine liability from the evidence placed before it and on the civil standard of proof.
a) Liability is assessed at 100% in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant b) Special Damages- Kshs. 17,900/= c) General Damages- Kshs. 600,000/= Total Amount- Kshs. /= 617900/= d) Costs of the suit
Issues in the judgment
#Running header cites a different suit number than the cause title
Mention date year inconsistent with hearing chronology
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Enock Romano Moli (Suing through father and next friend Wasibuku Moli Mori) v Godfrey Jacob Mbindi", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Suit No. E028 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/1015/eng@2026-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.