Maina v Kahiu & 3 others (Claim E3619 of 2024) [2025] SCC 67 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A police abstract blaming a driver isn't proof of negligence in Kenya—courts split liability 50:50 when evidence can't fix blame.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability for the rear-end collision
Liability apportioned at 50%: 50% between the Claimant and the 1st Respondent.
The evidence showed the Claimant's vehicle was hit from behind, raising a prima facie case of negligence against the 1st Respondent, and res ipsa loquitor was pleaded, shifting the burden. However, RW1's evidence that the Claimant's vehicle braked suddenly to avoid a pothole was not disproved, and the investigating officer did not testify. With only word against word and no adequate evidence to apportion blame, the court held the drivers equally liable.
Quantum of special damages
Special damages of Kshs. 135,092/= proved and awarded, including garage repair costs of Kshs. 98,832/= and car hire of Kshs. 5,000/= for two days.
Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved. Payment vouchers and receipts proved the assessment, re-inspection, tracing and inspection fees. The repair claim of Kshs. 98,832/= was supported by the payment voucher despite the higher quotation; the notes on previous tail gate repairs did not show unrepaired pre-accident damage. Car hire was payable as part of the insurer's duty of indemnity but limited to two days per the assessment report.
Legal principles established
#- An entry in a police abstract blaming a motor vehicle for an accident is not conclusive proof of negligence; it is only of persuasive value and becomes binding only if the investigating officer's evidence on the entry remains unshaken.
- A driver who hits another vehicle from behind creates a prima facie case of negligence against himself, which he must rebut.
- Where there is no concrete evidence to establish who is to blame as between two drivers, liability should be apportioned equally at 50:50.
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
- For a claim under subrogation, the insurer must prove a contract of insurance, that the insured suffered loss which the insurer made good, and that the loss was caused by a third party.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered against the 1st Respondent at 50% liability
- 2.Award of special damages totalling Kshs. 135,092/= (garage repair costs Kshs. 98,832/=; car hire fees Kshs. 5,000/=; assessment fees Kshs. 6,380/=; re-inspection fees Kshs. 2,320/=; tracing charges Kshs. 22,010/=; motor vehicle inspection Kshs. 550/=)
- 3.Net award of Kshs. 67,546/= after deduction of 50% liability
- 4.Interest at court rate on the sum of Kshs. 67,546/= from the date of filing the claim until payment in full
- 5.Costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 30,000/= to the Claimant
- 6.Certificate of costs and decree to issue forthwith
- 7.File closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance claim under the insurance principle of subrogation before the Small Claims Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maina v Kahiu & 3 others (Claim E3619 of 2024) [2025] SCC 67 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/67/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.