Ruai Family Hospital Limited v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Claim E4169 of 2024) [2025] SCC 66 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed an insurer's claim against an electricity provider because the insurer failed to prove the power company's negligence caused the damage.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant discharged the burden of proving negligence and causation against the Respondent
The claim failed: the Claimant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the damage to the X-ray machine was caused by the Respondent's negligence
The court found CW4, a biomedical engineer rather than an electrical engineer, unconvincing: he produced no proof of voltage fluctuation, did not investigate other machines or tenants, and lacked key documents. The Claimant also failed to call the machine operator and internal electrician, inviting adverse inference. By contrast, RW1's electrical-engineering evidence showed only the X-ray machine was damaged, the AVS was undamaged and other tenants were unaffected, supporting an internal fault at the Claimant's premises.
The applicable framework for compensation under Section 166 of the Energy Act
The Respondent could only be liable if the damage was caused by its negligence or avoidable default; liability was not established
Section 166(2) of the Energy Act obliges a licensee to compensate for damage caused by failure, poor quality or irregularity of supply due to negligence or avoidable default, subject to statutory defences in subsection (3). The court held that compensation under the section is contingent on proving the licensee's negligence or avoidable default, which the Claimant failed to do.
The elements of a subrogation claim
A subrogating claimant must prove the insured loss was made good by the insurer and that a third party's negligence caused it
Relying on Eastern Produce Kenya Ltd v Rongai Workshop & Transporters Ltd, quoting Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd v Julius Wambale, the court set out that subrogation applies where the insurer has compensated the insured for loss occasioned usually by a third party, and the insurer may then sue in the insured's name with consent. The insurer here expended Kshs. 179,077/=, but causation of the loss by the Respondent was not proved.
Legal principles established
#- Under the doctrine of subrogation, an insurer entitled to step into the shoes of the insured may seek indemnity from a third party, but the action must be instituted in the name of the insured with his consent
- A licensee is liable to compensate a consumer for property damage only where the damage results from the licensee's negligence or avoidable default in the supply of electricity
- Where a party fails to call a key witness within its custody or control, the court may draw an adverse inference
- Expert evidence does not trump all other evidence; conflicting expert opinion must be tested against the background of all other evidence and the quality of the experts' reasoning
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
- 2.Costs of Kshs. 40,000/= awarded to the Respondent
- 3.File closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court first-instance jurisdiction over the subrogation claim (statutory basis not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruai Family Hospital Limited v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited (Claim E4169 of 2024) [2025] SCC 66 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/66/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.