Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateDismissedNot stated in the judgment (plaint dated 9/9/2022, filed 15/9/2022)· [2026] KEMC 108 (KLR)

Sanghani & 2 others t/a RK Sanghani v Trakana Mombasa Ltd (Civil Case E142 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 108 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court (Makindu)
27 April 2026
YSY.A Shikanda
7,554 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~30 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court threw out a Ksh. 7.6 million accident claim solely because one plaintiff lacked written authority to sue on behalf of the others.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, owners of the business name R.K. Sanghani, sued Trakana Mombasa Ltd for special damages of Ksh. 7,613,310/= arising from a road traffic accident of 7/10/2019 at Kambu along the Mombasa-Nairobi Highway, alleging the defendant's driver negligently overtook and veered into their vehicle KCD 942U, writing it off. The defendant denied negligence, attributed the collision to the plaintiffs' driver, and later contended at submissions that the suit was incompetent for want of a board resolution and of PW3's written authority to act for his co-plaintiffs. Four plaintiffs' witnesses testified, including the driver (PW2) and the investigating officer (PW4), who blamed the defendant's driver; the defence called one witness who relied on scene photographs. The court first dealt with competency: R.K. Sanghani was a business name, not a company, so the company-authority arguments failed, but Order 1 rule 13 and Order 4 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules required written authority filed in court for PW3 to act for his co-plaintiffs. None was filed, and the plaintiffs never sought to cure the defect despite notice of the objection during the hearing. Holding that at judgment stage the defect was fatal and that locus standi goes to jurisdiction, the court found the suit incompetent and dismissed it with costs to the defendant. Obiter, the court found the defendant's driver 100% liable, vicariously attributed to the defendant, and would have awarded Ksh. 6,713,310/= in special damages, having disallowed the unproven loss of user claim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the suit for lack of written authority by co-plaintiffs

Holding

The suit is incompetent; the 2nd plaintiff had locus standi in his own right but no written authority to act for the other plaintiffs.

Reasoning

Order 1 rule 13 and Order 4 rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules require written authority filed in court where one plaintiff swears the verifying affidavit for others. Superior court authority (Research International, Luke Cheruiyot, Moses Onchiri) affirms this. The objection surfaced during cross-examination and in submissions; the plaintiffs never sought leave to cure it. At judgment stage, curing the defect would mean reopening a heard case, prejudicing the defence. Article 159(2)(d) does not save a defect touching capacity and jurisdiction.

p. 8
02

Liability for the road traffic accident (obiter, assuming competence wrong)

Holding

The defendant's driver was 100% liable and the defendant vicariously liable; photographs did not disprove the eyewitness and investigating officer.

Reasoning

PW2's testimony that the defendant's vehicle overtook and veered into his lane was corroborated by PW4, the investigating officer. Photographs taken by a non-witness could not show the point of impact and could not disprove an eyewitness (s.143 Evidence Act). The defendant called no driver or eyewitness to rebut. Presumption of agency applied absent evidence the driver acted outside employment (Morgan v Launchbury; Kansa v Solanki).

p. 10
03

Quantum of special damages (hypothetical)

Holding

Loss of user of Ksh. 900,000/= not proved; but pre-accident value less salvage plus receipts would yield Ksh. 6,713,310/= had the suit succeeded.

Reasoning

Special damages must be strictly proved (Hahn v Singh; David Bagine; Unga Limited). No receipts, contracts or records supported the loss of user claim. For a written-off vehicle, compensation is pre-accident value (Ksh. 7,000,000) less salvage (Ksh. 300,000); the assessor's fees of Ksh. 12,760/= and copy of records Ksh. 550/= were supported by receipts.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • Where there are several plaintiffs, one of them may only swear the verifying affidavit or act for the others if a written authority signed by the others is filed; without it the plaint is incompetent.
  • The defect of missing written authority is curable if raised before hearing, but at judgment stage it becomes fatal since curing it would require reopening the case.
  • Special damages, including loss of user, must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over a negligence/special damages claim (no specific provision stated)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sanghani & 2 others t/a RK Sanghani v Trakana Mombasa Ltd (Civil Case E142 of 2022) [2026] KEMC 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 9/9/2022, filed 15/9/2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/108/eng@2026-04-27

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