BM

5. The Defendants entered appearance and led their respective Statements of Defence putting the Plainti to strict proof of her averments in the Plaint. The Defendants denied the occurrence of the accident. They pleaded in the alternative that if the accident occurred then it was contributed to and substantially caused by the Plainti and the motorcycle rider’s negligent acts and omissions enumerated in the said Statements of Defence. They prayed that the Plainti’s case be dismissed with costs. 6. In response, the Plainti led replies to the Statements of Defence on record reiterating the contents of her Plaint. 7. The foregoing prompted this court to set down this matter for hearing for the parties herein to prove the averments in their respective pleadings on a balance of probabilities. 8. The evidence adduced by the Plainti and the Defendants is summarized below. Evidence Plainti ’s case 9. PW1 Dr. Joseph Sokobe produced the Plainti’s medical examination report dated 12th May 2025 showing that the accident caused the Plainti to sustain blunt injuries to the scalp, chest, and back, multiple cuts on the scalp as well as bruises on both forearms and both legs, as an exhibit. He also produced a receipt showing that he charged the Plainti Kshs. 6,000/= for preparing the medical report. 10. He reiterated in cross-examination that the Plainti suered soft tissue injuries. 11. PW2 Elias Adoka, a Clinical Ocer at Bungoma County Referral Hospital (BCRH) examined the Plainti and lled her P3 form dated 05th May 2025. He produced the said P3 form and the Plainti’s treatment notes from BCRH, and a receipt for Kshs. 150/=. 12. PW3 BMW adopted her witness statement dated 10th February 2026 as her evidence in chief. She recalled that the accident occurred when the motorcycle she was aboard, from Mateka general direction headed to Bumula general direction, was rammed by the oncoming Defendants’ motor vehicle, which encroached onto the motorcycle’s lane after hitting a pothole and losing control. 13. She added that the impact caused her to land on the left side of the road as one faces Mateka general direction. 14. In cross-examination, she added that she wore a helmet and a reector jacket at the time the accident occurred. Defendants’ Case 15. DW1 No. 225242 Sgt. Harrison Kwambai adopted his witness statement on record as his evidence in chief. His evidence was that the accident occurred when he was driving the Defendants’ motor vehicle at a speed of 20-30 km/hr from Mateka general direction headed to the Bumula DCC’s oce when the motorcycle the Plainti had boarded, which was coming from the opposite direction, swerved and hit the Defendants’ motor vehicle on the left front bumper. 16. He added that the impact caused the Plainti to smash the motor vehicle’s front windscreen. He produced his driving licence and the Defendants’ motor vehicle Certicate of Examination and Test dated 02nd May 2025 as exhibits. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/923/eng@2026-08-25 2

page 2 of 7

17. In cross-examination, he stated that the motor vehicle had been leased to the National Police Service at the time of the accident. He added that he was driving the motor vehicle in the course of his ocial duties when the accident occurred. 18. DW2 No. 217XXX CI Joseph Kimaiyo Yano adopted his witness statement dated 08th August 2026 as his evidence in chief. His testimony was largely a rendition of DW1’s testimony. Therefore, it will not serve any useful purpose to reproduce the same here. Analysis And Determination 19. This court has given due regard to the pleadings, evidence on record, the written submissions on record, and the authorities relied upon by the respective parties. 20. The uncontroverted evidence on record shows that the accident herein occurred, causing the Plainti to sustain bodily injuries. The evidence on record also proved on a balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant had leased the motor vehicle herein to the 1st Defendant at the time of the accident. 21. However, the 2nd Defendant did not place before this court the lease agreement between them and the 1st Defendant for this court to know whether the terms of the said lease agreement exempted the 2nd Defendant from any liability arising from an accident involving the motor vehicle herein during the pendency of the said lease agreement. 22. In the absence of the evidence alluded to in paragraph 21, the Defendants, being the benecial and the registered owners respectively of the motor vehicle herein, must be held vicariously liable for DW1’s negligent acts or omissions, if any, if the accident herein occurred in the course of DW1’s ocial duties. 23. It is also common ground that DW1 was on ocial duty at the time the accident occurred. Therefore, in the event this court nds that DW1’s negligent acts or omissions caused the accident herein, the Defendants will be jointly and vicariously liable for DW1’s negligent acts and omissions. 24. Given the above, this court takes the position that the issues for determination are liability and quantum. Liability 25. The Plainti testied that the accident occurred when the motor vehicle, which was being driven at a high speed, hit a pothole, lost control, swerved to the right-hand side, and hit the oncoming motorcycle she had boarded in the said motorcycle’s lane. She added that the impact caused her to fall on the left side of the road when facing the Bumula general direction. 26. DW1 and DW2, on their part, maintained that the accident occurred on the left side of the road as one faces Bumula general direction in the motor vehicle’s lane after the motorcycle the Plainti had boarded hit the motor vehicle’s front bumper on the left-hand side. 27. A reading of the motor vehicle Certicate of Examination and Test dated 02nd May 2025 produced by DW1 shows that the accident caused damage to the motor vehicle’s front bumper on the O/S side. The O/S side, in layman’s language, is the right-hand side or the driver’s side of the motor vehicle. 28. The contents of the said motor vehicle inspection report that the accident caused damage to the motor vehicle’s bumper on the right-hand side disproves the Defendants’ version of events on how the accident occurred. The Defendant’s motor vehicle was not hit by the motorcycle on the left side of the front bumper as alleged by the Defendants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/923/eng@2026-08-25 3

page 3 of 7

29. The fact that the motor vehicle was damaged on the right side of its front bumper corroborates the Plainti’s version of events that the accident happened in the motorcycle’s lane when the motor vehicle hit a pothole, lost control, and veered to the right-hand side as one faces the Bumula general direction. 30. Further, the damage to the motor vehicle’s front windscreen, which the Defendants attributed to the Plainti’s fall arising from the accident’s impact, lends credence to the Plainti’s case that the motor vehicle was being driven at a high speed when the accident occurred. 31. The Defendants submitted that the Plainti’s failure to produce the accident’s sketch map and the fact that the Plainti did not adduce evidence of DW1 having been charged with a trac oence arising from the accident diminished the evidential value of the Plainti’s evidence on record on DW1’s negligence. 32. It should be remembered that the Plainti witnessed the accident; therefore, her evidence on the circumstances under which the accident occurred was direct evidence within the meaning of section 63 (2) of the Evidence Act. 33. Direct evidence is the best evidence one can adduce in support of their case. Where direct evidence is not controverted or is corroborated by other evidence on record, the court must believe such evidence unless the circumstances of a particular case demand otherwise. 34. This court has already made a nding that the Plainti’s direct oral evidence on the circumstances under which the accident occurred was corroborated by the motor vehicle’s inspection report herein. In the circumstances, if this court were to demand that the Plainti produce the accident’s sketch map, it would be raising the standard of proof in a civil matter like this to beyond reasonable doubt instead of a balance of probabilities. 35. On the Defendants’ submission that the motorcycle was not insured and that the motorcycle rider was unlicensed when the accident occurred thus the rider must be blamed for causing or contributing to the occurrence of the accident, this court takes the position that the mere fact that a rider was not licensed and that the motorcycle was not licensed when the accident occurred is not prima facie evidence of negligence. Negligence cannot be proved by assumptions but evidence. In any event, the Plainti herein cannot be blamed for the rider’s negligence. Further, this court cannot apportion liability to a party who was not joined to this suit. 36. It is settled in this jurisdiction that direct evidence by a person involved in an accident of the circumstances under which an accident occurred is always deemed sucient to establish negligence in a road trac accident (see Mwaka v Nthenya (Civil Appeal 1 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 23923 (KLR)). Therefore, given that the Plainti’s direct evidence on how the accident occurred was corroborated by the motor vehicle’s inspection report, this court is inclined to nd that the Plainti proved on a balance of probabilities the particulars of negligence she attributed to the Defendants’ driver. 37. In any event, it is also not lost to this court that the Plainti, who was only a pillion passenger on the motorcycle, was neither in control of the motorcycle she had boarded nor the motor vehicle. Furthermore, the Defendants did not adduce enough evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Plainti was negligent at the time of the accident. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/923/eng@2026-08-25 4

page 4 of 7

38. It is for the reasons above that the Plainti cannot be blamed for the occurrence of the accident as held in Wilter Chemutai Torongei Vs. W.E. Tilley Muthaiga & Anothim (2017) eKLR, thus; “ The only time a passenger maybe held to be liable in my view, is when for instance it is shown that he did not fasten his seat belt or was trying to jump out of the vehicle when it has not stopped. That way, some contributory negligence could be attached to him.” 39. DW1 owed the Plainti a duty of care to ensure that the Plainti and other road users reached their destination safe and sound. That duty of care was breached when DW1 lost control of the motor vehicle at high speed and rammed into the motorcycle the Plainti had boarded, thereby occasioning the Plainti bodily injuries. 40. The upshot of the above is that this court nds the Defendants jointly and severally 100% liable for the occurrence of the accident. Quantum General Damages for Pain and Suering 41. The Plainti pleaded in paragraph 8 of her Plaint that the accident caused her to sustain blunt injuries to the scalp, chest, and back, multiple cuts on the scalp as well as bruises on both forearms and both legs. 42. The uncontroverted Plainti’s medical evidence contained in the medical evidence adduced by PW1 and PW2 proved on a balance of probabilities that the Plainti sustained the injuries pleaded in paragraph 8 of her Plaint as a result of the accident. 43. In the circumstances, this court nds and holds that the Plainti proved on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused her to sustain blunt injuries to the scalp, chest, and back, multiple cuts on the scalp as well as bruises on both forearms and both legs. 44. The law in this jurisdiction is that comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards. This legal principle was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Stanley Maore vs Georey Mwenda (2004) eKLR, as follows: “ ...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.” 45. This court has given due regard to the written submissions on record on quantum. 46. The injuries sustained by the Plainti herein are almost similar to the injuries sustained by the Plainti in Surian Enterprises Ltd v Mary Bahati Peter (Civil Appeal No. E199 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 20426 (KLR), where the court made an award of Kshs. 150,000/= for multiple soft tissue injuries, including a deep cut on the forehead and a blunt injury to the right knee. 47. In Oloo v Arika & another (Civil Appeal E080 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 2889 (KLR), the court made an award of Kshs. 150,000/= for a head injury, left and right leg injury, supercial bruises to both knees, face, and scalp, chest injury, soft tissue injuries on the ngers, bruises, and lacerations on various parts of the body. 48. Lastly, in Quick Shuttle Sacco v Joel & another (Civil Appeal E131 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 1573 (KLR), the court upheld an award of Kshs. 250,000/= for moderate multiple soft tissue injuries. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/923/eng@2026-08-25 5

page 5 of 7

49. The authorities above show that awards of between Kshs. 150,000/= - Kshs. 250,000/= are usually made for moderate multiple soft tissue injuries. It is for this reason that this court makes an award of Kshs. 200,000/= under this head. Special Damages 50. The Plainti pleaded in paragraph 8 of her Plaint for Special Damages of Kshs. 6,700/=. The Plainti produced a receipt for the medical report for Kshs. 6,000/=, a receipt for the copy of records from NTSA for Kshs. 550/= and a receipt for Kshs. 150/= from BCRH in support of her claim for special damages of Kshs. 6,700/=. 51. The 1st Defendant urged this court not to award the special damages sought by the Plainti since the Plainti had not led ETR receipts in support of the same. The 2nd Defendant conceded that the Plainti had only proved special damages of Kshs. 6,550/=. 52. It should be remembered that the receipts from NTSA and BCRH produced by the Plainti herein are tax-compliant. The said receipts are thus admissible in evidence. 53. On the receipt for Kshs. 6,000/= produced by Dr. Sokobe, this court agrees that the same is not an ETR receipt and that no revenue stamps were axed on the said receipt. Be that as it may, the law on the evidential value of such a receipt was settled by the Court of Appeal in Paul N. Njoroge Vs. Abdul Sabuni Sabonyo [2015] eKLR as follows: “ 21. The nding is often made by lower courts that documents which do not comply with the Stamp Duty Act, Cap 480, Laws of Kenya were invalid and inadmissible in evidence. But this Court has held that to be erroneous…” 54. Further, it is not the payor’s duty to pay tax but the payees. Expecting Plaintis to walk around looking for service providers who issue ETR or tax-compliant receipts when they need urgent services will be stretching civil litigation rules to unreasonable levels, thereby prejudicing many Plaintis for omissions made by other people. 55. The long and short of it all is that there is no law in this jurisdiction requiring special damages in personal injury claims to be claimed strictly through ETR. 56. In sum, this court nds and holds that the Plainti pleaded and proved special damages of Kshs. 6,700/ =. Determination 57. The upshot of the foregoing is that judgment is entered against the Defendants jointly and severally in the following terms: a. Liability………………………………………100% b. General Damages…………………...………Kshs. 200,000/= c. Special Damages……………………...…….Kshs. 6,700/= Total Award……………………..Kshs. 206,700/= 58. 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 ling this suit till payment in full. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/923/eng@2026-08-25 6

page 6 of 7

59. The Plainti will have the costs of this suit. 60. Judgment accordingly. READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA THIS 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Ms. Khisa for the Plainti Mr. Juma for the 1st Defendant Ms. Wambani for the 2nd Defendant C/A: Mr. Rioba https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/923/eng@2026-08-25 7

page 7 of 7