Republic v Ndungu (Traffic Case 1239 of 2019) [2025] KEMC 183 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan magistrate convicted a bus driver of causing death by dangerous driving after he overtook a lorry where livestock was near the road.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the accused person drove motor vehicle registration number KCD 901M dangerously, thereby causing the accident
- 2.Whether the accused person knocked down the deceased
- 3.Whether the deceased herein died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident
- 4.Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt
Key legal issues
#Whether the accused drove dangerously
Yes - overtaking a lorry in an area where livestock was on or near the road was dangerous driving
The court found the accident was caused by the accused's act of overtaking a lorry. He saw cows two metres ahead while overtaking and did not claim they suddenly crossed. A prudent driver would not overtake where livestock was present, and the accused relied solely on the lorry driver's signal without establishing that the course was clear. This fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver and amounted to dangerous driving.
Whether the accused knocked down the deceased
Yes - the consistent and corroborative eye-witness evidence proved it, and the accused's denial was not credible
PW1 and PW3 gave consistent, corroborative testimony that the accused's bus knocked down the deceased. The accused denied knocking down the deceased but could not say who did; a careful driver would have seen how the deceased was struck. The medical evidence proved death from injuries sustained in the accident, so the court preferred the prosecution's narrative.
Standard of proof and burden
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the accused has no duty to prove innocence
The court restated the presumption of innocence and the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, drawing on English and American authority, holding that a reasonable doubt must be more than imaginary and that guilt cannot rest on mere suspicion. It then found the prosecution had discharged this burden on the totality of the evidence.
Ingredients of the offence under section 46 of the Traffic Act
The ingredients are dangerous driving on a road, or leaving a vehicle dangerously on a road, and causing the death of another person
The court set out the statutory elements from section 46 and section 2 of the Traffic Act, noting that the offence concerns the death of a human being only - a point it made against the prosecution for alleging the death of seven cows in the particulars - and applying authority requiring proof of fault.
Legal principles established
#- The offence of causing death by dangerous driving relates to the death of a human being and does not extend to animals
- To justify a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving there must be an objectively dangerous situation plus fault on the part of the driver
- An accident by itself is not conclusive evidence of careless or dangerous driving; there must be evidence that the driver charged was at fault
Court orders
#- 1.The accused person was found guilty of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving and convicted accordingly
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Criminal jurisdiction under section 46 of the Traffic Act, read with the Criminal Procedure Code (including section 200(3))
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.
In view of the foregoing, it is my finding that the prosecution has proven its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I find the accused person guilty of the ofience of Causing death by dangerous driving and proceed to convict him accordingly.
Clearly, the accused person overtook when it was not safe for him to do so.
Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, I can state with conviction that the accused person drove the motor vehicle dangerously and thus caused the accident, leading to the death of the deceased herein.
Fault certainly does not necessarily involve deliberate misconduct or recklessness or intention to drive in a manner inconsistent with proper standards of driving.
The onus is on the Prosecution to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The accused person is under no duty to prove his innocence.
Issues in the judgment
#Registration number of the accused's vehicle is inconsistently stated - the charge particulars give KCB 901M while the undisputed facts and defence evidence give KCD 901M
The second prosecution witness described as PW 6 is identified only as 'Doctor Mbugua (other name not clear)' and the record also shows the veterinary doctor testified twice, PW 5 being recorded as a seventh witness
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Ndungu (Traffic Case 1239 of 2019) [2025] KEMC 183 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/183/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.