Kabochi v Ndungu (Claim E5986 of 2024) [2025] SCC 78 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court awarded a motorist over Kshs. 415,000 after a matatu crash, but refused some claims for lacking receipts proving actual payment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Liability for the accident
The Respondent was found 100% liable
The Claimant's driver testified that the Respondent's matatu encroached onto his lane. A Police Abstract prepared by the investigations officer blamed the driver of the Respondent's vehicle. Relying on the rebuttable presumption of truth attaching to entries in public documents under section 38 of the Evidence Act, and there being no evidence adduced to controvert the Police Abstract or the Claimant's testimony, the court disbelieved nothing in the Claimant's version and found the Respondent wholly liable.
Repair costs
Kshs. 275,300/= proved and awarded
Although the assessment report estimated repairs at Kshs. 220,300/= and the garage receipt showed Kshs. 275,300/=, the court took judicial notice that an assessment report is an estimate and that actual repair costs may turn out higher or lower, also due to the time lapse between assessment and repairs. On that basis the pleaded and receipted figure of Kshs. 275,300/= was held strictly proved.
Inspection and re-inspection costs
Claim dismissed as not strictly proved
The Claimant relied on fee notes from Dante Assessors. The court held that fee notes are mere demands for payment and do not evidence expenditure; only receipts or invoices stamped 'paid' prove expenditure. Since the special damage was not strictly proved, the head of claim was dismissed.
Loss of use
Kshs. 140,000/= awarded (14 days at Kshs. 10,000/= per day)
Treating loss of user as special damage, the court accepted daily worksheets showing daily income of Kshs. 10,000/= - Kshs. 11,000/=, unimpeached by the Respondent. However, applying the duty to mitigate and the Assessor's Report indicating repairs would take fourteen days, the court limited loss of use to fourteen days rather than the twenty days claimed.
Legal principles established
#- There is a rebuttable presumption of truth in the entries made in a public document by a public official (section 38 of the Evidence Act).
- Special damages must be both pleaded and strictly proved.
- An owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver using the vehicle with the owner's authority or for the owner's benefit.
- Fee notes do not evidence expenditure; a receipt or an invoice stamped 'paid' proves expenditure.
- A claim for loss of user is a claim for special damages that must be specifically proved.
- A plaintiff has a duty to mitigate loss.
Court orders
#- 1.Liability at 100% in favour of the Claimant
- 2.Repair costs awarded at Kshs. 275,300/=
- 3.Loss of use awarded at Kshs. 140,000/= (14 days at Kshs. 10,000/= per day)
- 4.Net award of Kshs. 415,300/= with interest at court rate from the date of filing the claim till payment in full
- 5.Costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 50,000/= to the Claimant
- 6.Certificate of Costs and Decree to issue forthwith
- 7.File closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act (parties consented to the matter proceeding under that section)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kabochi v Ndungu (Claim E5986 of 2024) [2025] SCC 78 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/78/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.