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 the judgment as provided· [2026] SCC 205 (KLR)

Too v Raycon Ltd (Civil Case E208 of 2025) [2026] SCC 205 (KLR)

Eldoret Law Courts (subordinate court)
7 August 2026
MAM. E. Aligula
1,321 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

#

An Eldoret court made a vehicle owner pay an insurer Kshs 175,130 for a rear-end crash after he offered no evidence to defend himself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, suing on behalf of Kenya Orient Insurance Company Limited under its right of subrogation after indemnifying her, claimed Kshs 175,130/- plus interest and costs for damage to motor vehicle KDG 102M, which on 1st April 2022 was allegedly rammed from behind by motor vehicle KBB 540X along the Eldoret–Kapsabet Road at Unity Homes. The respondent denied ownership of KBB 540X and blamed the claimant's driver. The claimant called four witnesses: a police officer who produced the Occurrence Book entry and police abstract attributing blame to KBB 540X; a tracing officer; an assessor who produced the assessment report and fee note; and the insurer's legal officer who produced invoices, receipts, payment vouchers and re-inspection reports. The respondent filed a defence but called no evidence. The court framed two issues: liability and quantum. On liability, applying Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act and the presumption of vicarious ownership liability drawn from Kenya Bus Services Ltd v Dina Kawira Humphrey citing Karisa v Solanki, and noting the unrebutted police records and the rear-impact damage, the court held the respondent 100% liable. On quantum, the court found the repairs of Kshs 153,120/-, assessor's fees of Kshs 13,930/- and re-inspection fees of Kshs 8,080/- proved by documents, with no contradicting report from the respondent. Judgment was entered for the claimant for Kshs 175,130/- with costs and interest, and a stay of 30 days was granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Liability for the accident

Holding

The respondent was held 100% liable; the accident was solely caused by the negligence of the driver of KBB 540X.

Reasoning

The police records (Occurrence Book and abstract) produced by CW1 attributed blame to KBB 540X, and that evidence was unshaken. The respondent filed a defence but called no witness to rebut it. The damage to the rear of the claimant's vehicle was consistent with a rear-end collision. Under s.107(1) Evidence Act the claimant bore the burden, discharged on a balance of probabilities, and the ownership-negligence presumption in Kenya Bus Services was not rebutted.

p. 4
02

Quantum of damages

Holding

Damages of Kshs 175,130/- proved: repairs of Kshs 153,120/- plus assessor's fees of Kshs 13,930/- and re-inspection fees of Kshs 8,080/-, all supported by reports, invoices, receipts and payment vouchers.

Reasoning

The assessment report of 6th April 2022 itemised the repairs estimated at Kshs 153,120/-, and the vehicle was repaired at that cost at Buffalo Autolab Ltd, confirmed by a re-inspection report and post-repair photographs. The assessor's fee of Kshs 13,930/- and Master Assessors' re-inspection fee of Kshs 8,080/- were proved by fee notes, cheques and payment vouchers. The respondent produced no contradicting report.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a motor vehicle is proved to have caused damage through negligence, a presumption arises that it was being driven by a person for whose negligence the owner is responsible, unless rebutted.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Liability 100% in favour of the claimant as against the respondent
  2. 2.Claimant is entitled to damages of ksh 175,130/-
  3. 3.The claimant is awarded costs and interest of the suit
  4. 4.Stay of 30 days granted

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSection 107(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Kenya Bus Services Ltd v Dina Kawira Humphrey
    [2003] eKLR
  • Karisa v Solanki
    [1969] EA 318
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the subordinate court over a road-traffic negligence/subrogation claim

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Too v Raycon Ltd (Civil Case E208 of 2025) [2026] SCC 205 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/205/eng@2026-08-07

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