Gakuya v Ndung’u & another (Civil Case E051 of 2025) [2025] SCC 28 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Voi Small Claims Court awarded a car accident victim Kshs.210,195 after the parties settled fault at 90:10 in his favour.
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 Respondent is liable for the accident.
- 2.What is the quantum of damages awardable if any.
- 3.Who bears costs of the claim.
Key legal issues
#Liability for the road traffic accident
Liability settled by consent at 90:10 in favour of the claimant and adopted as the court's judgment.
The respondent, despite initially denying the claim, recorded a consent on liability dated 1/12/2025 apportioning liability 90:10 in favour of the claimant. The court adopted that consent as its own order and judgment on the issue of liability, and the matter had proceeded by way of formal proof under Section 30 of the Act.
Quantum of general damages for soft tissue injuries (10 cm deep cut wound to the left knee)
General damages of Kshs.230,000/= awarded.
The court applied the principle that comparable injuries attract comparable awards, considered the Cornilliac v St Louis factors, and compared authorities including Victoria Mwikali Musyoka (Kshs.150,000/=) and Gusii Deluxe Limited (Kshs.500,000/= for more severe injuries). Considering that the claimant suffered no disability, the rate of inflation, passage of time and impact on his life, it awarded Kshs.230,000/=.
Special damages
Kshs.3,550/= pleaded and proved by receipts was allowed.
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. The claimant pleaded Kshs.3,550/= being costs of obtaining the medical report and motor vehicle copy of records, and the expenses were proved by way of receipts, hence allowed in full.
Legal principles established
#- Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards in the assessment of general damages.
- Assessment of damages falls within the trial court's discretion and aims to put the injured party in the position he would have been in but for the injury.
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved.
- Costs follow the event as compensation to the successful party, not a penalty on the losing party.
Court orders
#- 1.Adoption of the consent on liability in the ratio 90:10 in favour of the claimant as the judgment of the court on liability
- 2.General damages awarded at Kshs.230,000/=
- 3.Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= allowed as specifically pleaded and proved
- 4.Net award of Kshs.210,195/= after deduction of 10% contribution (Kshs.23,355/=)
- 5.Claimant awarded costs of the claim
- 6.Interests awarded from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.File closed forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court Act (matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Act, being the Small Claims Court Act, on consent on liability)
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 do not think there is any difierence of opinion as to its (sic) being a general rule that where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation or damages, you should as nearly as possible get at the sum of money which will put the party who has been injured or who has sufiered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong”.
The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 29th July 2025 is allowed in the following terms. Liability 90:10 General damages Kshs.230,000/= Special damages Kshs. 3,550/= Sub total Kshs.233,550/= Less 10% contribution Kshs.23,355/= Net total Kshs.210,195/=
The claimant is awarded costs and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the consent on liability was recorded on 1/12/2025 while the claim was filed (statement of claim dated) on 29th July 2025 and judgment delivered 8/12/2025; the consent date '1/12/2025' may be a typographical error (possibly 1/12/2025 is consistent, but the internal chronology is not fully verifiable).
The judgment does not state the case number, making identification of the matter incomplete.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gakuya v Ndung’u & another (Civil Case E051 of 2025) [2025] SCC 28 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/28/eng@2025-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.