Ndungu v Gikonyo & another (Claim E5373 of 2024) [2025] SCC 40 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan insurer recovered KShs 310,260 for a rear-end crash because a police abstract blaming the other driver went unrebutted.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability for the road traffic accident
Respondents jointly and severally 100% liable; the entry in the police abstract attributing the accident to KDD 164 U was unrebutted and a rear-end collision raises a prima facie case of negligence.
The police abstract dated 27th March 2022 recorded the outcome of investigations as attributing the accident to KDD 164 U. By section 38 of the Evidence Act and the presumption of regularity, such an entry is admissible and presumed true unless rebutted. The Respondents offered only witness statements, which cannot dislodge the entry. Photographs showed damage evenly spread across the rear, contradicting the 2nd Respondent's swerving narrative. A rear-end collision established prima facie negligence.
Quantum of the insurer's subrogated loss
Special damages of Kshs. 310,260/= proved: cash in lieu Kshs. 33,600/=, repairs Kshs. 269,120/=, assessment costs Kshs. 7,540/=.
The Satisfaction Note from Maxwell Autotechs Limited showed a handwritten entry recommending cash in lieu because the bumper had not been replaced, indicating the re-inspection report of 16th October 2022 postdated the Claimant's own repair of the bumper, later reimbursed by the insurer. The cash-in-lieu claim was thus supported. Disbursements and the records search fee were disallowed as not recoverable under subrogation.
Legal principles established
#- Where a police abstract contains an entry on the outcome of investigations, a court cannot ignore it; such an entry is persuasive and stands unless rebutted by credible evidence.
- A driver who hits another vehicle from behind bears a prima facie case of negligence which he must rebut with credible evidence.
- A witness statement alone cannot rebut an entry in a police abstract on the outcome of investigations into a traffic accident.
Court orders
#- 1.Liability 100% in favour of the Claimant
- 2.Judgment entered against the Respondents jointly and severally for Kshs. 310,260/=
- 3.The sum of Kshs. 310,260/= to earn interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 30,000/=
- 5.Certificate of costs and decree to issue forthwith
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Determination by consent under section 30 of the Act (Small Claims Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndungu v Gikonyo & another (Claim E5373 of 2024) [2025] SCC 40 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/40/eng@2025-08-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.