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 74 (KLR)

Moja Expressway Company Ltd v Njoroge & another (Claim E670 of 2025) [2025] SCC 74 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
10 July 2025
TOT.O. Omono
2,067 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded KURA over Kshs. 761,000 for Expressway damage after a driver failed to defend the claim with actual evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant sued for Kshs. 772,618.60/= in repair costs after the 1st Respondent's motor vehicle KCG 906 Q, driven by the 2nd Respondent, was allegedly involved in a self-involving accident on the Nairobi Expressway on 18th August 2024, damaging the road. The Respondents denied the accident and, in the alternative, blamed the Claimant's negligence in failing to erect reflective signage and proper lighting. On 16th June 2025 the parties elected determination by documents under section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act. The court framed two issues: liability and quantum. On liability, the unrebutted police abstract blamed the 2nd Respondent, and the 1st Respondent did not dispute that the 2nd Respondent was his servant, attracting vicarious liability. The Respondents pleaded contributory negligence but filed no witness statements, so their averments remained mere allegations per CMC Aviation Ltd v Cruisair Ltd. The court invoked section 38 of the Evidence Act on the presumption of truth of public documents and held the Respondents jointly and severally 100% liable. On quantum, the Quantity Surveyor's report satisfied Rule 5(2)(a) of the Small Claims Court Rules and proved repair costs of Kshs. 760,468.60/=. However, the Quantity Surveyor's fees of Kshs. 11,600/= were dismissed because they were supported only by an invoice, not a receipt or invoice endorsed 'paid'. The NTSA records fee of Kshs. 550/= was proved by receipt. Judgment was entered for Kshs. 761,018.60/= with interest at court rates from filing, and costs assessed at Kshs. 50,000/=.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents were liable for the accident

Holding

Respondents held 100% jointly and severally liable

Reasoning

The police abstract blamed the 2nd Respondent and was unrebutted; the Respondents pleaded negligence against the Claimant but filed no witness statements, so their averments remained mere allegations. Uncontroverted evidence showed a self-involving accident by the 1st Respondent's vehicle driven by his servant, attracting vicarious liability.

p. 4
02

Whether the cost of repairing the road was strictly proved

Holding

Kshs. 760,468.60/= proved via the Quantity Surveyor's report

Reasoning

Rule 5(2)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act Rules permits reliance on an itemised estimate of repair by a competent assessor. The report disclosed in detail how the figure was computed, and the Respondents produced no contrary expert evidence to displace it.

p. 6
03

Whether the Quantity Surveyor's fees of Kshs. 11,600/= were strictly proved

Holding

Dismissed for want of proof

Reasoning

Only an invoice was produced; the Claimant's explanation that fees were contingent on recovery was rejected as incredible. Settled law requires actual receipts or invoices endorsed 'paid' to prove special damages.

p. 7
04

Whether the NTSA records search fee of Kshs. 550/= was proved

Holding

Awarded as pleaded and proved by receipt

Reasoning

The claim was supported by an NTSA receipt, satisfying the strict proof requirement for special damages.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Pleadings unproved by evidence remain mere allegations on which no decision can be founded
  • Where a party fails to call evidence, its pleadings remain unsubstantiated statements of fact
  • An expert report cannot be dismissed by word of mouth but only through credible countervailing evidence
  • An invoice is not proof of payment for special damages unless endorsed 'paid'
  • Entries in public documents by public officials carry a rebuttable presumption of truth

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered against the Respondents jointly and severally with liability at 100%
  2. 2.Repair costs of Kshs. 760,468.60/= awarded
  3. 3.Copy of records costs of Kshs. 550/= awarded
  4. 4.Total award of Kshs. 761,018.60/= with interest at court rate from date of filing until payment in full
  5. 5.Costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 50,000/= per section 33 of the Act
  6. 6.Certificate of costs and decree to issue forthwith upon payment of requisite court fees
  7. 7.File closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Small Claims Court Actsection 30
  • Small Claims Court Act RulesRule 5(2)(a)
  • Evidence Actsection 38
  • Small Claims Court Actsection 33

Cases cited (8)

  • CMC Aviation Ltd. vs. Cruisair Ltd. (No. 1)
    [1978] KLR 103; [1976-80] 1 KLR 835
  • Motex Knitwear Limited vs. Gopitex Knitwear Mills Limited
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC No. 834 of 2002
  • Autar Singh Bahra and Another vs. Raju Govindji
    HCCC No. 548 of 1998
  • Trust Bank Limited vs. Paramount Universal Bank Limited & 2 Others
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCCS No. 1243 of 2001
  • Herbert Hahn v Amrik Singh
    [1985] eKLR
  • Ganjoni Towers Limited v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    (Civil Suit 35 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 21706 (KLR)
  • Idris & another v Lime & another (Suing as the legal representatives in the Estate of Samson Ndunde Lime (Deceased))
    (Civil Appeal E20 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 18062 (KLR)
  • Total (Kenya) Limited (formerly Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited v Janevams Limited
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court Act, section 30 (determination by way of documents)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moja Expressway Company Ltd v Njoroge & another (Claim E670 of 2025) [2025] SCC 74 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kitale SCC Claim No. E036 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/74/eng@2025-07-10

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