Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsPartially AllowedKitale SCC Claim No. E036 of 2024· [2025] SCC 73 (KLR)

Demax Investments Ltd v Oasis Generation & 2 others (Claim E3569 of 2024) [2025] SCC 73 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
10 July 2025
TOT.O. Omono
1,852 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan Small Claims Court awarded a driver full damages for a crash, but cut his loss-of-user claim because he had no evidence for it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Small Claims Court claim arose from a road traffic accident on 9th January 2022 along Kenyatta Avenue, Nairobi, involving the Claimant's motor vehicle KCF 912H and the Respondents' motor vehicle KCL 199L. The Claimant sought Kshs. 470,682/= as special damages for repairs, towing, loss of user, assessment fees and a copy of records, together with costs and interest. The parties agreed to determination by documents under section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act. The court found the 2nd Respondent was wrongly sued, as no evidence showed beneficial ownership of KCL 199L or contribution to the accident. Liability was fixed at 100% against the 1st and 3rd Respondents jointly and severally, the police abstract being unrebutted and the 1st Respondent vicariously liable for the 3rd Respondent's driving. On quantum, the court awarded repair costs of Kshs. 235,132/=, towing fees of Kshs. 15,000/=, assessment fees of Kshs. 5,000/= and copy of records of Kshs. 550/=, all strictly proved. Loss of user was reduced to Kshs. 52,000/=: the claimed 30-day repair period appeared only in submissions, which are not evidence, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate mitigation; the court used the assessment report's 14-day repair period and the daily income record of Kshs. 3,000/=. Judgment totalled Kshs. 307,682/= with interest at court rates from filing. The claim against the 2nd Respondent was dismissed with costs of Kshs. 30,000/= to the Claimant, and the Claimant's costs of Kshs. 30,000/= were assessed against the 1st and 3rd Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Vicarious liability of the 1st Respondent for the 3rd Respondent's driving

Holding

The 1st and 3rd Respondents are jointly and severally 100% liable for the accident

Reasoning

The Claimant's driver's witness statement blamed the 3rd Respondent, and the police abstract corroborated this by attributing fault to the driver of KCL 199L. The 1st Respondent led no evidence disputing that the 3rd Respondent was driving their vehicle for their benefit, so vicarious liability attaches. The Claimant's uncontroverted account was accepted.

p. 3
02

Proof of special damages

Holding

Repair costs, towing fees, assessment fees and copy of records were pleaded and strictly proved by receipts and an assessment report

Reasoning

The Claimant produced receipts and the Primedots Auto Valuers Assessment Report substantiating the pleaded heads. Special damages being strictly provable, the court awarded them as pleaded, though it adjusted the assessment fees figure in the final award.

p. 4
03

Loss of user and mitigation

Holding

Award reduced to Kshs. 3,000/= x 14 days = Kshs. 52,000/=

Reasoning

The claimed 30-day repair period was unsupported by evidence and appeared only in submissions, which cannot substitute for evidence. The assessment report indicated a 14-day repair period. Absent proof of mitigation, the court exercised discretion and awarded loss of user based on the Daily Income Record showing Kshs. 3,000/= per working day over 14 days.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved
  • Submissions do not constitute evidence
  • Entries in a public document by a public official enjoy a rebuttable presumption of truth
  • A claimant in a loss of user claim must demonstrate mitigation of loss

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the 1st and 3rd Respondents jointly and severally with liability at 100%
  2. 2.Award of special damages: Repair costs Kshs. 235,132/=, Towing fees Kshs. 15,000/=, Loss of user Kshs. 52,000/=, Assessment fees Kshs. 5,000/=, Copy of records Kshs. 550/= — Total Kshs. 307,682/= with interest at court rate from date of filing till payment in full
  3. 3.Claim against the 2nd Respondent dismissed with costs of Kshs. 30,000/= to be borne by the Claimant
  4. 4.Claimant's costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 30,000/= per section 33 of the Act, borne by the 1st and 3rd Respondents
  5. 5.Certificate of costs and decree to issue forthwith upon payment of requisite court fees, if any; file closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Small Claims Court Actsection 30
  • Small Claims Court Actsection 33
  • Evidence Actsection 38

Cases cited (3)

  • Mwavula v Waweru t/a Antique Auctioneers Agencies & another
    (Civil Appeal E374 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5988 (KLR)
  • Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi vs. Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • African Highland Produce Ltd v John Kisorio
    (2001) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court Act (claims determined under sections 30 and 33 of the Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Demax Investments Ltd v Oasis Generation & 2 others (Claim E3569 of 2024) [2025] SCC 73 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kitale SCC Claim No. E036 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/73/eng@2025-07-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.