Dismas Wanyonyi (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased) v Idd Salim Nabuko Manda
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court held a tractor owner 100% liable for a fatal accident and awarded the family Kshs. 2.1 million despite claiming no fault.
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 Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant's tractor knocked the deceased
- 2.Whether the Defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of his driver
- 3.Whether any negligence should be apportioned to the deceased
- 4.Quantum: loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act
- 5.Quantum: loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering under the Law Reform Act
- 6.Quantum: special damages
Key legal issues
#Identification of the vehicle involved in the accident
The Plaintiff proved the subject tractor knocked the deceased; the tractor was the only one stopped by members of the public about 50 metres from the scene.
DW1 admitted driving the tractor along the road on the material evening, heard noise from the public, stopped and found a person lying on the road some 50 metres behind the tractor. Eyewitnesses PW3 and PW4 confirmed the tractor ran over the deceased from behind. The court found the identity of the vehicle established on a balance of probabilities.
Vicarious liability
The tractor was owned by the Defendant and driven by his authorised driver or servant, so the Defendant was vicariously liable.
It was common ground that the subject tractor was owned by the Defendant and driven at the time of the accident by his agent or servant with authority or consent. Consequently, any negligence of the driver is visited upon the Defendant, and the court found the Defendant 100% liable.
Whether negligence should be apportioned to the deceased for walking on the left side of the road
No negligence was apportioned to the deceased; the Defendant was found 100% liable.
Although pedestrians are generally required to walk facing oncoming traffic, the deceased was walking off the road, and the driver neither hooted, braked nor swerved. Driving a lethal machine, the driver owed the pedestrian a higher duty of care. The court, guided by Monda v Suji and the Masembe principle, declined to apportion any negligence to the deceased.
Loss of dependency - multiplicand, multiplier and dependency ratio
Minimum wage of Kshs. 8,109.90/= adopted as multiplicand, multiplier of 25 years, dependency ratio of 2/3, yielding Kshs. 1,621,980/=.
The deceased was a farmer in informal employment with unproven income, so the minimum wage for a general labourer under the Regulation of Wages (General Amendment) Order 2022 was adopted. Life expectancy of 63 years against age 28 supported a 25-year multiplier. The deceased supported his parents and siblings, justifying a 2/3 dependency ratio per Gachoki Gathuri.
Pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life
Kshs. 50,000/= for pain and suffering (death was instantaneous) and Kshs. 200,000/= for loss of expectation of life.
The post mortem report showed the deceased died on the spot; following Kimani v Nyaga, nominal damages of Kshs. 50,000/= were appropriate for pain and suffering. For loss of expectation of life the court followed Catholic Diocese of Machakos, which awarded Kshs. 200,000/= for a 30-year-old, the deceased being in the same age bracket.
Legal principles established
#- A police abstract need not list all accident eye witnesses; testimony of witnesses not named in a police abstract cannot be disregarded where the accident was still under investigations.
- A driver of a motor vehicle owes other road users, including pedestrians, a high duty of care and must take reasonable steps to avoid collisions even where the pedestrian may be on the wrong side of the road.
- Where a deceased's monthly income cannot be ascertained, the statutory minimum wage should be adopted as the multiplicand.
- There is no settled rule on the dependency ratio applicable to unmarried deceased persons; the court may properly exercise discretion, including adopting 2/3 where parents are dependants.
Court orders
#- 1.Liability apportioned 100% in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant
- 2.Loss of dependency of Kshs. 1,621,980/= awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act
- 3.Kshs. 50,000/= awarded for pain and suffering
- 4.Kshs. 200,000/= awarded for loss of expectation of life
- 5.Special damages of Kshs. 230,765/= awarded (net award Kshs. 2,102,445/=)
- 6.General damages to accrue interest at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.Special damages to accrue interest at court rate from date of filing suit until payment in full
- 8.Plaintiff awarded costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a fatal accident negligence claim
Relief refused
#Damages for the deceased as a bodaboda rider / pleaded monthly income of Kshs. 30,000/= as multiplicand
No documentary evidence proved that the deceased was a bodaboda rider or earned Kshs. 30,000/= monthly; the court found he was a farmer of unknown income and adopted the statutory minimum wage
Costs
The Plaintiff will have the costs of this suit.
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.
The fact that the subject tractor was the only tractor that was stopped by members of the public just 50 metres from the scene of the accident leaves no doubt on the identity of the tractor that knocked the deceased.
this court takes the position that a police abstract need not list all the accident's eye witnesses.
In any event, the mere fact that the deceased was walking on the wrong side of the road did not permit the subject tractor's driver to knock the deceased.
Given that the subject tractor's driver was driving a lethal machine, he owe the deceased; a pedestrian, a higher duty of care.
a minimum wage ought to be adopted as a multiplicand where monthly income could not be ascertained.
Liability – 100% in favour of the Plaintiff
Net Award - Kshs. 2,102,445/=
The Special Damages awarded will accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing this suit till payment in full.
The Plaintiff will have the costs of this suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains an apparent unfinished editing passage on the dependency ratio: 'Plaintiff on the dependency ratio, the Defendant on the dependency ratio…' appears as an incomplete sentence before the citation of authority.
The Defendant's written submissions were filed incomplete on the CTS platform, which the court itself noted on the record.
Grammatical/typographical errors in the judgment, e.g. incomplete sentence 'may tempt one some degree of negligence on the deceased.'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dismas Wanyonyi (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased) v Idd Salim Nabuko Manda", Case Analysis (2025). Bungoma CMC CC. No. E525 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/417/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.