REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL CASE NO. E170 OF 2025 SAMSON ONG’ERA……………......….………………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS WANANGALI & JOHN PAUL MISIKO………………….…..………………. …………..…DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. This suit was instituted by the Plaintiff through a Plaint dated 25 th April 2025. The Plaintiff prayed for judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally for: a) General damages, past, present, and future medical and nursing expenses b) Future medical expenses c) Special Damages Kshs. 4,900/= d) Costs e) Interset f) Any other relief this Honourable court may deem fit to grant 2. The Plaintiff’s case was that on 30th November 2024 while riding motorcycle registration number KMEM 273 R along Bungoma – Chwele around Makutano area, motor vehicle registration number KCP 357 F owned by the 1st Defendant and driven by the 2nd Defendant lost control and knocked him.
page 1 of 7
3. The Plaintiff blamed the occurrence of the accident on the Defendants’ negligence as set out in paragraph 5 of the Plaint. 4. The Plaintiff also pleaded that as a result of the accident, he sustained bodily injuries enumerated in paragraph 6 of the Plaint hence this suit for compensation. 5. The Defendants entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence denying the occurrence of the accident and the ownership of the motorvehicle herein. They also denied all the particulars of negligence that the Plaintiff attributed to them. 6. In the alternative, the Defendants pleaded that if the accident herein occurred, then the same was solely and/or substantially contributed by the Plaintiff’s negligence as particularized in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Defence. 7. The Defendants prayed that this case be dismissed with costs. EVIDENCE Plaintiff’s Case 8. PW1 Samson Ong’era adopted his witness statement herein as his evidence in chief and produced all the documents he filed in support of his case as exhibits. 9. In cross-examination, he stated that the motor vehicle hit him from behind. He could not tell the damage to the motor vehicle. He admitted that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. 10.He added that he still experiences pain in his fingers, shoulder, and near the right eye, and that he usually seeks drugs for that pain. Defendant’s Case 11.The Defendants did not call any witnesses to substantiate the allegations pleaded in their Statement of Defence.
page 2 of 7
12.However, on 30th October 2025, the parties herein recorded a consent on liability with the effect that liability herein was apportioned in the ratio of 90%:10% jointly and severally against the Defendants in the Plaintiff’s favour. ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION 13.This court has given due regard to the pleadings filed herein, the evidence on record, the written submissions filed, as well as the authorities relied upon by the parties. 14.Given the consent on record on liability, it follows that the occurrence of the accident and the ownership of the motor vehicle herein are not disputed. That being the case, this court takes the view that the only issue for determination is quantum. Quantum (a) General Damages for Pain and Suffering 15.The Plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 6 of his Plaint that the accident caused him to sustain lacerations on the right side of the face, lacerations on the third and fourth fingers, lacerations above and lateral aspect of the right orbital margin, a swollen right leg, as well as headache and neck pain. 16.The injuries above pleaded by the Plaintiff were corroborated by the Plaintiff’s P3 form dated 02nd December 2024 (Pexh.2), outpatient card from Bungoma County Referral Hospital dated 02nd December 2024 (Pexh.7), and the medical report by Dr. Ekesa dated 02nd December 2024 (Pexh.6). 17.The said injuries were assessed as harm. Dr. Ekesa’s opinion was that the Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and psychological trauma as a result of the accident. 18.It is also noteworthy that the Plaintiff was treated as an outpatient.
page 3 of 7
19.In the absence of contrary medical evidence by the Defendants, this court is inclined to hold and find that the Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the accident herein caused him to sustain the injuries set out in his Plaint. 20. The law in this jurisdiction on the award of damages for accident injuries is that, in awarding damages, is that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards. The Court of Appeal in Stanley Maore vs Geoffrey Mwenda (2004) eKLR, held: “...we must consider the award of damages in the light of the injuries sustained. It has been stated now and again that in assessment of damages, the general approach should be that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards, keeping in mind the correct level of awards in similar cases.” 21.The Plaintiff urged this court to make an award of Kshs. 500,000/= under this head by placing reliance on Carolyn Indasi Mwonyonyo v Kenya Bus Service Ltd Civil Appeal 17 of 2007 (2012) eKLR where the High Court made an award of Kshs. 300,000/= for soft tissue injuries and dislocation of the knee joint. 22.The authority relied upon by the Plaintiff for an award of Kshs. 500,000/= under this head is not applicable since that authority refers to a Plaintiff who sustained more serious injuries than the ones sustained by the Plaintiff herein. 23. On the other hand, the authority cited by the Defendants, that is, Gede Enterprises Ltd v Ondieki alias Samwel Mose (Civil Appeal 41 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 5764 (KLR) (15 May 2024) (Judgment), where the court awarded Kshs. 100,000/= for a cut on the occipital region of the scalp, several lacerations on the face, hand, and legs applies to this case since the
page 4 of 7
injuries sustained by the Plaintiff therein are almost similar to the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in this case. 24.In HB (Minor suing through mother & next friend DKM) v Jasper Nchonga Magari & another [2021] eKLR where the High Court upheld an award of Kshs. 60,000/= for soft tissue injuries to the head, thorax, abdomen and limbs. 25.In Asad Motors Limited & 2 others v Yaa (Civil Appeal 92 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 24279 (KLR) (24 October 2023) (Judgment) Kshs. 100,000/= was awarded for deep cuts on the forehead and upper lip, blunt object injury, and bruises to the right lower limb and loosening of the upper front tooth. 26. Finally, in Ondicho v Mosigisi (Civil Appeal E054 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 5140 (KLR) (24 April 2025) (Judgment), the court awarded Kshs. 80,000/= for multiple soft tissue injuries. 27.Guided by the authorities above, and more particularly the Ondiso case (supra) determined in April 2025, and considering inflation trends in this country since April 2025 to date, this court makes an award of Kshs. 100,000/= under this head. (b)Special Damages 28.The Plaintiff pleaded for Special Damages of Kshs. 4,900/=. The Defendants conceded that the same had been proved. 29.It is against this backdrop that this court makes an award of Kshs. 4,900/= under this head. (c) Future Medical Expenses 30.The Plaintiff pleaded in his Plaint that he needed anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, and psychosocial support. The medical report on record confirmed as much.
page 5 of 7
31.The Plaintiff submitted that an award of Kshs. 100,000/= under this head would be a reasonable award. 32.The Defendants on their part submitted that the medical report on record did not demonstrate that the Plaintiff would require future medical expenses of Kshs. 100,000/= hence this court should not award Kshs. 100,000/= under this head as submitted by the Plaintiff. 33.This court agrees with the Defendants that Dr. Ekesa did not stated in his report the cost of the future treatment which the Plaintiff would require in terms of anti-inflammatory drugs and psychosocial support. 34.The Plaintiff in his testimony testified that he had not fully recovered since he was still experiencing pain. He did not state if he needed any psychosocial support. It thus follows that the only future medical expenses needed by the Plaintiff are expenses for the purchase of painkillers. 35.In the circumstances, this court exercises its discretion and awards the Plaintiff Kshs. 10,000/= under this head for the purchase of antiinflammatory drugs (painkillers). DETERMINATION 36.The upshot of the foregoing is that judgment is entered against the Defendants jointly and severally in the following terms: a) Liability………………………………………90%:10% in favour of the Plaintiff b) General Damages…………………………Kshs. 100,000/= c) Future medical expenses………………….Kshs. 10,000/= d) Special Damages……………………...…….Kshs. 4,900/= Total Award…………………………………Kshs. 114,900/=
page 6 of 7
Less 10% Net Award………………………………….Kshs. 103,410/= 37.The General Damages will accrue interest at court rate from the date of this judgment till payment in full while the Special Damages will accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing this suit till payment in full. 38.The Plaintiff will have the costs of this suit which will be subject to the ratio of liability herein per note 3 to Schedule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order under Part and Party Costs which provides as follows: “3. Where success in a suit is divided, the scale may be distributed having regard to partial success on either side.” 39.Judgment accordingly. Read, signed, and delivered in open Court at Bungoma this 06th day of February 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Wanyama for the Plaintiff Ms. Njuguna for the Defendant C/A: Mr. Rioba
page 7 of 7