Masale v Unigroup Transporters Ltd (Civil Case E066 of 2025) [2025] SCC 30 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Voi Small Claims Court held a vehicle owner fully liable when its wheels detached on the highway, awarding the injured pedestrian Kshs.553,550.
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 Respondent is liable for the accident
- 2.What is the quantum of damages awardable if any
- 3.Who bears costs of the claim
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent was liable for the accident
Respondent held 100% liable; the dislodging of the wheels indicated they were not well fixed to the axle, which was negligence, and the claimant contributed nothing to the accident
The respondent's own driver confirmed the accident and never suggested the claimant contributed. The respondent's plea of inevitable accident failed because the wheels detaching indicated they were not properly fixed. The tyre-burst authorities cited were distinguished as inapplicable since there was no tyre burst here. On a balance of probabilities, liability was established fully against the respondent.
Whether the claimant suffered a fracture and the appropriate general damages
The court found a fracture was proved on the initial medical reports and that the claimant had since healed; general damages of Kshs.550,000/= awarded
Conflicting medical reports were resolved in favour of the earlier reports prepared close in time to the accident, since the later examination occurred months after the accident without X-ray evidence supporting its findings. Guided by comparable fracture awards, inflation and passage of time, Kshs.550,000/= was assessed.
Whether future medical expenses of Kshs.96,000/= were payable
Dismissed for failure to strictly prove the expense by receipts and because the claimant had fully healed
The physiotherapy report anticipated 48 sessions concluding by October 2025, yet no receipts or evidence showed the sessions were undertaken. The later medical report indicated full recovery with no need for further physiotherapy, so the claim failed the strict proof standard for special damages.
Legal principles established
#- Determination of liability in a road traffic case is decided by applying common sense to the facts of each particular case, not by scientific theories of causation
- Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards in damages assessment
- Future medical expenses must be strictly proved, and where treatment was to have been incurred in the past, receipts must be produced
Court orders
#- 1.The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11th September 2025 is allowed with liability at 100% against the respondent
- 2.General damages of Kshs.550,000/= awarded for pain and suffering
- 3.Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= awarded as pleaded and proved by receipts
- 4.The prayer for future medical expenses (Kshs.96,000/= for physiotherapy) is dismissed for want of proof
- 5.Total award of Kshs.553,550/=
- 6.Claimant awarded costs of the claim and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 7.File closed forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 30 of the Small Claims Court Act (proceedings by way of documents only)
Relief refused
#Future medical expenses of Kshs.96,000/= for 48 physiotherapy sessions
Not strictly proved by receipts; the later medical report showed the claimant had fully healed and no longer required the sessions
Costs
The claimant having been successful, she is awarded costs of the claim plus interests from the date of judgment until payment in full.
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.
Since the occurrence of the accident is not denied save for the manner in which it occurred which is excusable in the circumstances and as explained and not fatal to the claim, I do find that the claimant proved the claim on a balance of probabilities and as such the respondent is held 100% liable for the accident.
I am inclined to award the claimant Kshs.550,000/= as general damages for pain and sufiering.
I do therefore find that this particular expense has not been proved to the required standards based on the reasons aforementioned and those raised by the respondent in submissions and I proceed to dismiss the prayer for future medical expenses.
The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 11th September 2025 is allowed in the following terms. Liability 100% General damages Kshs.550,000/= Special damages Kshs. 3,550/= total Kshs.553,550/=
The claimant is awarded costs and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Masale v Unigroup Transporters Ltd (Civil Case E066 of 2025) [2025] SCC 30 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/30/eng@2025-11-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.