Machoka v Bidco Oil Refineries Ltd & another (Civil Suit 523 of 2018) [2026] KEMC 197 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court awarded a former security guard Kshs. 1.6 million after his employer's careless theft complaint led to his arrest, detention and failed prosecution.
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 has been able to prove his case against the defendants herein, i.e. whether all the essential elements of the tort of malicious prosecution were proved
- 2.Whether the prosecution of the plaintiff was instigated by the 1st defendant
- 3.Whether the prosecution terminated in the plaintiff's favour
- 4.Whether the prosecution was instituted and continued without reasonable and probable cause
- 5.Whether the prosecution was actuated by malice
- 6.What reliefs (general and exemplary damages, interest and costs) should be awarded
Key legal issues
#Instigation of the prosecution by the 1st defendant
The 1st defendant, without due diligence, caused the plaintiff's arrest; the whole process was instigated by it
The court found the plaintiff's testimony more believable than DW1's on a balance of probability. DW1 alluded to due diligence involving the production manager, but no internal report, memo or internal audit was produced to substantiate the claim, so the complaint to police that set the law in motion was attributed to the 1st defendant.
Favourable termination
The prosecution terminated in the plaintiff's favour by acquittal under section 210 of the CPC for lack of evidence
It was not disputed that the proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour. From the acquittal ruling, only one witness testified and his evidence did not implicate the plaintiff; indeed he confirmed the plaintiff was a diligent worker.
Absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice; burden of proof
Once the plaintiff discharged his legal burden by testimony imputing malice, the evidential burden shifted to the 1st defendant, which failed to produce investigative reports; malice was proved
Section 107 of the Evidence Act places the burden on the plaintiff, who testified he was arrested without proper interrogation and that bribery explained the charging of only three of six arrested. The 1st defendant failed to produce the internal audit, investigation reports or the valuation report of the stolen oil, and the investigating officer was not called, so dishonesty and malice were proved to the required standard.
Quantum of damages
Consolidated general damages of Kshs. 1,600,000/- awarded, considering the 4 days' detention and the 3 years 7 months of prosecution; exemplary damages declined
The court relied on the comparable decision in Nahashon Mwangi Mwaura v Commissioner of Police & Another, raised the award therein to Kshs. 1,600,000/- due to inflation, and factored in the arrest, 4-day confinement infringing liberty, and the length of prosecution during which the 2nd defendant produced only 4 witnesses. The award was found sufficient, making exemplary damages unnecessary.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove prosecution instigated by the defendant, favourable termination, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice
- The burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice lies on the plaintiff, though an evidential burden may shift to the defendant to produce investigation records
- An acquittal does not by itself connote malice, but absence of the complainant's investigation records may support a finding of malice
Court orders
#- 1.Award of Kshs. 1,600,000/- as consolidated general damages for malicious prosecution, raised from the comparable award in Nahashon Mwangi Mwaura v Commissioner of Police & Another due to inflation
- 2.Refusal to award exemplary damages
- 3.Award of costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- 4.Award of interest on all sums at court's rates
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 the tort of malicious prosecution
Relief refused
#Exemplary damages
The consolidated general damages award was found sufficient; exemplary damages unnecessary
Costs
The plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit and interest on all sums at court's rates
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 plaintifi is also hereby awarded the costs and interest on all the sums herein at court’s rates.
due to the costs of infiation, I do hereby raise the award therein to Kshs. 1,600,000/as consolidated general damages award herein
I thus do not find it necessary to award exemplary damages herein
Applying the above principles, and having considered the fact that the plaintifi discharge his legal burden of proving the dishonesty in the whole process I do find malice has been proved to the required standards.
To prosecute a person is not prima facie tortious, but to do so dishonestly or unreasonably is.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment refers to the 1st defendant as 'Appellant' in paragraph 11, although this is a first-instance suit
Delivery date stated as 25th June 2026, which appears anomalous relative to a suit filed in 2018 and heard earlier
Recurring typographical errors ('plaintifi', 'efience', 'Chrage sheet', 'overfiated') suggesting OCR defects in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Machoka v Bidco Oil Refineries Ltd & another (Civil Suit 523 of 2018) [2026] KEMC 197 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/197/eng@2026-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.