Macharia v Kerengo & another (Civil Case E497 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 425 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court dismissed a road accident injury claim because the victim proved the crash happened, but not that the driver was negligent.
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 defendants were negligent and therefore liable for the road traffic accident of 16th June 2021
- 2.If liability is established, what quantum of general and special damages is payable
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved negligence against the defendants
Liability was not proved; the plaintiff gave no evidence of the pleaded particulars of negligence and mere occurrence of a collision is not proof of fault
It was common ground the accident occurred and that the 1st defendant was joining the main road when the collision happened. PW1 said they were hit by a Toyota Corolla driven by a woman, but led no evidence on speed, look-out, carelessness or any other pleaded particular. DW1 testified she gave way before joining the highway. The court held that the happening of an accident is not itself evidence of negligence and found no evidence pointing blame at the defendants.
Quantum of general damages had liability been established
The court indicated it would have awarded Kshs. 200,000/- as general damages, relying on the plaintiff's counsel's authorities
Although the claim failed on liability, the court expressed a hypothetical assessment: had the plaintiff succeeded, general damages of Kshs. 200,000/- would have been awarded, mainly relying on the authorities submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff. This was a contingent assessment, not an operative award.
Legal principles established
#- The fact that an accident or collision happened is not in itself proof of negligence; the plaintiff must plead and prove fault on the part of the defendant
- In an action for negligence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging negligence, who must prove duty of care, breach and resulting loss on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.Plaintiff's claim dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru
Relief refused
#General damages for injuries sustained in the road traffic accident
Liability was not proved to the required standard; no evidence of the pleaded particulars of negligence
Special damages of Kshs. 12,270/-
Claim failed with the suit as liability was not established
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the defendants
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 than an accident or a collision happened is not in itself full proof evidence of negligence. The plaintiff must plead and prove fault on the part of the defendant.
I thus do find that liability has not been proved to the required standard and do hereby dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with costs to the defendants.
Had he succeeded, however, I would have awarded him Kshs. 200,000/- as general damages mainly relying on the authorities submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated '04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026', which post-dates the Plaint of 14th June 2024 and appears to be a typographical error for 2025; recorded as printed
The judgment refers to the plaintiff inconsistently by gender, stating the accident occurred 'as a consequence of which she sustained severe injuries' while the plaintiff is elsewhere described as male ('his mother', 'he sustained')
The coram records the magistrate as 'PA NDEGE, SPM' but the signature block reads 'ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGE SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE'; the same officer is assumed
No cases are formally named in the judgment although the court states it relied on 'the authorities submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff'; the authorities are not identified and cannot be listed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Macharia v Kerengo & another (Civil Case E497 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 425 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Case E497 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/425/eng@2026-08-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.