Wambua v China Road & Bridge Corporation (CRBC) (Civil Case 295 of 2017) [2026] KEMC 704 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that an employer who withholds its own employment records loses the argument, awarding an injured casual labourer full compensation.
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 was an employee of the defendant at the material time
- 2.Whether the plaintiff was on duty in the defendant's employment on 7/12/2016
- 3.Whether the plaintiff was involved in an industrial accident on 7/12/2016
- 4.Whether the defendant is liable for the accident
- 5.Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries and suffered loss as a result of the accident
- 6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and if so, the nature and quantum thereof
- 7.Who should bear the costs of this suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant at the material time
Yes, established on a balance of probabilities; the defendant failed to produce employment records to rebut the certificate of employment, and an adverse inference was drawn
The plaintiff testified and produced a certificate of employment. The defendant's HR witness merely asserted the records showed no employment and alleged the certificate was forged, but did not produce the employment or injury records, which were confirmed available. Under sections 112 of the Evidence Act and 10(7) of the Employment Act reasoning, the burden lay on the employer as custodian of the records. The Personnel Manager who allegedly issued the certificate was not called. Employment was therefore proved.
Whether the defendant was liable in negligence and whether volenti non fit injuria applied
The defendant was held 100% liable; volenti non fit injuria was rejected as not proved
The defendant called no witness to establish the elements of volenti non fit injuria (full knowledge of risk and true consent). There was no evidence of a safe working environment, provision of safety gear, or plaintiff negligence. An unequal power relationship between employer and casual labourer meant the plaintiff's working without gear did not make him the author of his own misfortune. Causation between the accident and the defendant's breach was established.
Quantum of general damages for a deep cut wound on the 2nd digit of the left foot
General damages assessed at Ksh. 120,000/=, informed by comparable awards adjusted for inflation
Applying the principles in West (H) and Sons Ltd v Shepherd and comparable authorities, the court noted the plaintiff sustained a single soft-tissue/cut injury treated on outpatient basis. Comparable awards cited ranged between Ksh. 150,000/= (2016) and Ksh. 200,000/=–300,000/= (2022) for multiple injuries. Given the single injury and the age of the awards coupled with inflation, Ksh. 120,000/= was considered adequate.
Entitlement to special damages and interest
Special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= (medical legal report) specifically pleaded and strictly proved; interest on special damages from filing suit, on general damages from judgment
Relying on Nizar Virani and Ouma v Nairobi City Council, the court reiterated that special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved; the pleaded Ksh. 3,000/= was proven. On interest, applying section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, Jane Wanjiku Wambui v Anthony Kigamba Hato and Omunyokol Akol Johnson v Attorney General, interest on special damages accrues from the date of loss/filing suit while interest on general damages accrues from the date of judgment since general damages are only ascertained at judgment.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proof lies on the person who alleges; particulars of negligence in a plaint must be proved by evidence
- Where employment and injury records are especially within an employer's knowledge and it fails to produce them though available, an adverse inference may be drawn and the burden of disproving the fact lies on it
- An employer owes a duty of reasonable care, not an absolute duty or insurer's liability, for risks reasonably foreseeable or preventable by reasonable precaution
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- Interest on special damages runs from the date of loss/filing of suit while interest on general damages runs from the date of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of Ksh. 120,000/= against the defendant
- 2.Special damages of Ksh. 3,000/= against the defendant
- 3.Total award of Ksh. 123,000/=
- 4.Interest on general damages at court rates from the date of judgment/decree until payment in full
- 5.Interest on special damages from the date of filing suit to the date of judgment
- 6.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
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 tort claim for personal injuries arising from an industrial accident (damages claim within pecuniary jurisdiction)
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, I hold the defendant 100% liable for the accident.
I find that the plaintifi has established on a balance of probabilities that he was an employee of the defendant at the material time.
Upon analysis of the evidence on record, I find that the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is not applicable in this case.
It is trite law that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
General damages for pain, sufiering and loss of amenities...........Ksh. 120,000/ = 2. Special 3,000/= damages………………………………………………………………………..…..Ksh. Total…………………………………………………………………………….………………... …..Ksh. 123,000/=
The plaintifi is also awarded interest on the damages as well as costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date appears in the future relative to the pleading dates and is unusual: 'DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA CTS AT MAKINDU THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026.' The judgment is recorded here exactly as printed.
The suit number is not stated anywhere in the judgment text provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wambua v China Road & Bridge Corporation (CRBC) (Civil Case 295 of 2017) [2026] KEMC 704 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/704/eng@2026-08-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.