Koimett v Nganga (Civil Case 1102 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 196 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court awarded a matatu passenger Kshs 315,550 after finding the other driver 100% liable because the defendant blamed no one else.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Who was liable for the road traffic accident involving motor vehicles KBV 785W and KAX 085U?
- 2.What general damages for pain and suffering should be awarded for the soft tissue injuries sustained?
- 3.What special damages, if any, were proved?
Key legal issues
#Liability for the road traffic accident
The defendant was 100% liable. The plaintiff was a mere passenger with no control over either vehicle, and the defendant adduced no evidence to controvert this, nor did he issue a third-party notice against the matatu driver or any other person.
PW1 testified he was a passenger in matatu KBV 785W which was stationary at Baikerra stage when the defendant's vehicle KAX 085U rammed into its left side. PW2, a police officer, produced a police abstract confirming the investigation attributed blame to the KAX vehicle. The defendant closed his case without calling any witness, leaving the plaintiff's evidence uncontroverted. As the plaintiff was only a passenger and no third-party notice was taken out, the defendant alone bears the blame. The liability finding also applies to two companion suits by other passengers in the same matatu.
Quantum of general damages
Kshs. 300,000/- awarded in general damages for pain and suffering for soft tissue injuries to the face and both legs, taking a middle ground between the parties' proposals and factoring inflation.
The court considered the authorities and proposals of both counsel, noted that no two injuries are identical, and adopted a middle-ground award adjusted for inflation. The injuries were soft tissue injuries to the face and both legs, consistent with the plaint.
Special damages
Only the costs of the medical report and the motor vehicle search were proved; Kshs. 15,550/- awarded as special damages.
Special damages are not granted as of right; the plaintiff had to prove each particular item. On the evidence, only the medical report fee and the motor vehicle search fee were proved, so only those sums were awarded.
Legal principles established
#- A lawful passenger who had no control over either vehicle involved in an accident cannot be found liable for the accident.
- A defendant who fails to take out a third-party notice against another person allegedly responsible must shoulder the blame alone where no evidence controverts the plaintiff's case.
- Special damages must be specifically proved; only items actually proved are awardable.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant at a sum of Kshs. 315,550/- (Kshs. 300,000/- general damages and Kshs. 15,550/- special damages), the defendant having been found 100% liable
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff
- 3.Interest on all awards at court rates
- 4.45 days stay of execution granted on the defendant's application
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 road traffic accident claim (general and special damages)
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 upshot is that judgment is hereby entered for the plaintifi, against the defendant at a sum of Kshs. 315,550/-, having found the defendant to be 100% liable. The plaintifi also gets the costs of the suit and interest on all the awards herein at court rates.
There was no evidence tendered by the defendant to controvert this fact and as such I find the defendant herein 100% liable.
He is the one who was sued, and he did not take any third-party notice on any other person, including the driver of the matatu in which the plaintifi was travelling in.
Noting that no injuries are similar or exactly the same, I do hereby take a middle ground, factoring infiation, and award the plaintifi herein Kshs. 300,000/- in general damages for pain and sufiering.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of delivery appears as 2026 ('THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026') although the suit was filed in 2021 and heard from 2022; likely a typographical error for 2025.
The plaint identifies the Plaintiff as Roy Kemboi Koimet, but the judgment states the test suit file is CC1101/2021 in which 'Kelvin Kiprotich Kibet is the plaintifi', creating an internal inconsistency as to the plaintiff and file identity.
Vehicle registration numbers are inconsistent across the judgment (KAX 085U / 085V / 083U; KBV 785W / 789W).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koimett v Nganga (Civil Case 1102 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 196 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). CC1101/2021 (as identified in the judgment; the plaint describes the Plaintiff as Roy Kemboi Koimet). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/196/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.