Murefu v Abdulahi & another (Civil Case E0268 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 559 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court awarded a passenger Kshs. 157,650 after a rear-end collision, holding the defendants 100% liable because they offered no defence or evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Liability for the road traffic accident of 05th April 2025
- 2.Quantum of general damages for pain and suffering
- 3.Quantum of special damages
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's evidence established negligence against the Defendants
The Defendants were held 100% liable. The Plaintiff's direct uncontroverted evidence that his vehicle was hit from behind established a prima facie case of negligence which the Defendants failed to dislodge, having adduced no evidence.
The Plaintiff, a passenger, gave direct evidence under section 63(2) of the Evidence Act that the Defendants' vehicle hit his from behind. Such evidence is deemed sufficient to establish negligence in road traffic cases. Hitting a vehicle from behind creates a prima facie case of negligence against the following driver. The Defendants filed no defence and called no witnesses; the court drew an adverse inference that evidence within their control would have been adverse to them. The evidential burden shifted to the Defendants, who failed to dislodge it.
Quantum of general damages for moderate multiple soft tissue injuries
Kshs. 150,000/= awarded, applying the comparable-injuries principle and recent comparable awards
The court found the Plaintiff sustained moderate multiple soft tissue injuries proved on a balance of probabilities by uncontroverted medical evidence. It applied the principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards, rejecting the Defendants' reliance on dated 2019–2021 authorities and the Plaintiff's authorities involving more serious injuries. It instead adopted awards of Kshs. 150,000/= in Surian Enterprises Ltd v Mary Bahati Peter and Oloo v Arika & another, where injuries were almost similar.
Whether the pleaded special damages of Kshs. 18,810/= were proved
Only Kshs. 7,650/= proved by legible receipts and awarded
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. The Plaintiff pleaded Kshs. 18,810/=, but some supporting receipts were illegible. Only the legible receipts — Kshs. 5,000/= for the medical report, Kshs. 550/= for a copy of records, and Kshs. 7,650/= from Nabuala Medical Centre — proved the claim. The court accordingly awarded Kshs. 7,650/= under this head.
Legal principles established
#- Direct, uncontroverted evidence by a passenger on how an accident occurred is sufficient to establish negligence, and a driver who hits another vehicle from behind bears a prima facie case of negligence which he must rebut with evidence
- Where a party fails to adduce evidence within their knowledge or control, the court may draw an adverse inference that such evidence would have been adverse to that party
- Comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards
- A passenger in a motor vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident unless it is shown, for example, that he failed to fasten a seat belt or attempted to jump out of a moving vehicle
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered against the Defendants jointly and severally with liability at 100%
- 2.General damages of Kshs. 150,000/=
- 3.Special damages of Kshs. 7,650/= (total award Kshs. 157,650/=)
- 4.General damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 5.Special damages to accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing suit till payment in full
- 6.Plaintiff awarded the 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 road traffic accident claim (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#General damages of Kshs. 650,000/= as sought by the Plaintiff
The authorities the Plaintiff relied on involved more serious injuries than those sustained by him
The full pleaded special damages of Kshs. 18,810/=
Some of the receipts produced in support were illegible and did not prove the entire pleaded amount
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.
In the circumstances, this court finds and holds the Defendant 100% liable for the occurrence of the accident.
Submissions are not evidence, no matter how flowery and rich in law or authorities they may be.
Where a party has custody or is in control of evidence which that party fails or refuses to tender or produce, the court is entitled to make adverse inference that if such evidence was produced, it would be adverse to such a party.
comparable injuries should, as far as possible, be compensated by comparable awards, keeping in mind the correct level of awards in similar cases.
The upshot of the foregoing is that judgment is entered against the Defendants jointly and severally in the following terms: a) Liability………………………………………100% b) General Damages…………………...………Kshs. 150,000/= c) Special Damages……………………...…….Kshs. 7,650/= Total Award……………………… Kshs. 157,650/=
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'the Defendant's driver' and 'the Defendant' in places while the parties are described as 'the Defendants'
Some quotations in the judgment (e.g. from Atanga v Rojeh) appear with missing spacing and a typo ('placed on the burden om the appellant'), but the substance is clear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murefu v Abdulahi & another (Civil Case E0268 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Bungoma Magistrates' Court civil suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/559/eng@2026-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.