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 ClaimsAllowedNot stated in judgment

Ngundi v Bernard (Civil Case E091 of 2025) [2026] SCC 17 (KLR)

Small Claims Court
19 January 2026
FMF.M. Mulama
1,254 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan Small Claims Court awarded a crash victim over KShs. 223,000 after the driver ignored the lawsuit, proving skipping court guarantees you lose.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Small Claims Court judgment at Lamu concerned a road traffic accident of 11 October 2025 in which the claimant, a lawful passenger in motor vehicle KDR344W travelling along the Nairobi-Mombasa highway in Taita Taveta County, was injured when the respondent's vehicle KDB 237J, allegedly driven negligently and while overtaking unsafely, lost control and rammed into it. She sustained bruises on the left fingers, superficial cuts on the left toes and lumbo sacral pain. The respondent was served but never entered appearance; interlocutory judgment was entered and the matter proceeded by way of formal proof on documents only. The adjudicator framed three issues: liability, quantum, and costs. On liability, applying William Wagura Maigua v Elbur Flora Limited, the court held that entry of interlocutory judgment settled liability and found the respondent 100% liable jointly and severally. On quantum, guided by the principle that comparable injuries attract comparable awards and by economic considerations, the court awarded general damages of Kshs.200,000/=, declining the claimant's proposed Kshs.500,000/=. Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= for the medical report and records search were allowed as pleaded and proved, and future medical expenses of Kshs.20,000/= for medication and physiotherapy were allowed as particularized and reasonable. Applying the costs-follow-the-event principle, the claimant received costs and interest from the date of judgment until payment in full, and the file was closed. Final award: Kshs.223,550/=.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Respondent is liable for the accident.
  2. 2.What is the quantum of damages awardable if any.
  3. 3.Who bears costs of the claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Liability where defendant does not enter appearance

Holding

Respondent is 100% liable for the accident jointly and severally.

Reasoning

Interlocutory judgment was entered after the respondent, though served, failed to enter appearance or file a defence. Following William Wagura Maigua v Elbur Flora Limited, entry of interlocutory judgment settles liability and no evidence need be called to prove it. Formal proof therefore concerned quantum only.

p. 2
02

Quantum of general damages for soft tissue injuries

Holding

General damages of Kshs.200,000/= awarded for bruises on left fingers, superficial cuts on left toes and lumbo sacral pain.

Reasoning

The court applied the principle that comparable injuries attract comparable awards, considered the medical report confirming soft tissue injuries with anticipated full recovery, and factored in inflation and the state of the economy, declining the claimant's proposed Kshs.500,000/= as excessive relative to comparable awards.

p. 3
03

Special damages and future medical expenses

Holding

Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= for the medical report and records search allowed as pleaded and proved; future medical expenses of Kshs.20,000/= allowed as particularized and reasonable.

Reasoning

Special damages had been specifically pleaded and proved from the record. The doctor confirmed future medication and physiotherapy costs, estimated and particularized per item in the medical report, which the court found reasonable.

p. 3
04

Costs

Holding

Costs awarded to the claimant following the event.

Reasoning

The claimant was successful; the costs-follow-the-event principle compensates the successful party rather than penalizing the losing one.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where interlocutory judgment has been entered, the plaintiff is under no obligation to call evidence to prove liability.
  • Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards in general damages.
  • Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved.
  • Costs follow the event and are meant to compensate the successful party.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11th November 2025 is allowed with liability at 100%
  2. 2.General damages of Kshs.200,000/= awarded
  3. 3.Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= awarded
  4. 4.Future medical expenses of Kshs.20,000/= awarded (total Kshs.223,550/=)
  5. 5.Claimant awarded costs and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full
  6. 6.File to be closed forthwith

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

FM
F.M. MulamaAdjudicator
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court Act (original civil claim for money relief; not expressly cited in judgment)

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

a. The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11th November 2025 is allowed in the following terms. Liability 100% General damages Kshs.200,000/= Special damages Kshs. 3,550/= Future medical expenses Kshs.20,000/= Total Kshs.223,550/=
p. 3Final orders/disposition
The claimant is awarded costs and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full.
p. 3Costs and interest
The court therefore makes a finding that the respondent is 100% liable for the accident jointly and severally.
p. 2Liability
it is a settled principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards
p. 2Quantum principle

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment does not state the case number or the names of the parties, referring to them only as claimant and respondent.

minor

Gender pronouns for the claimant are inconsistent within the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngundi v Bernard (Civil Case E091 of 2025) [2026] SCC 17 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/17/eng@2026-01-19

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