Adhiambo v Bernard (Civil Case E090 of 2025) [2026] SCC 7 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan Small Claims Court awarded an accident victim over Kshs. 268,000 after the driver ignored the lawsuit, confirming Skipping court has serious financial consequences.
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
#Liability where the respondent did not enter appearance
The respondent is 100% liable for the accident jointly and severally; interlocutory judgment settled liability
The respondent was served but never entered appearance or filed a defence. Interlocutory judgment was entered, and following William Wagura Maigua v Elbur Flora Limited, the claimant was under no obligation to call evidence to prove liability at formal proof. The court therefore found the respondent wholly liable.
Quantum of general damages for soft tissue injuries
General damages awarded at Kshs.250,000/=, guided by comparable awards in Michael Okello v Priscilla Atieno and Michael Odiwuor Obonyo v Clarice Odera Ogunde
The claimant sustained soft tissue injuries to both shoulders and a cut wound to the left foot, with anticipated full recovery. The court compared awards in cases with similar injuries, considered the value of the shilling, inflation and passage of time, and settled on Kshs.250,000/= as fair compensation without being excessive.
Special damages and future medical expenses
Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= proved and allowed; future medical expenses of Kshs.15,000/= particularized in the medical report and allowed
The pleaded special damages for the medical report and records search were proved on the record. The doctor estimated future medication and physiotherapy at Kshs.15,000/=, itemized in the medical report, which the court found reasonable and allowed as prayed.
Costs of the claim
Costs awarded to the claimant as the successful party
Applying the principle that costs follow the event, and noting that costs compensate the successful party rather than penalize the losing one, the successful claimant was awarded costs of the claim together with interests.
Legal principles established
#- Entry of interlocutory judgment settles liability and the plaintiff need not call evidence to prove it at formal proof
- Comparable injuries should attract comparable awards in general damages
- Damages should be fair compensation, not excessive, considering the economy and value of the shilling
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved
- Costs follow the event
Court orders
#- 1.Liability found at 100% against the respondent jointly and severally
- 2.General damages of Kshs.250,000/= awarded
- 3.Special damages of Kshs.3,550/= awarded
- 4.Future medical expenses of Kshs.15,000/= awarded (total Kshs.268,550/=)
- 5.Claimant awarded costs and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 6.File closed forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court jurisdiction over the claim (judgment does not cite a specific provision)
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 court therefore makes a finding that the respondent is 100% liable for the accident jointly and severally.
it is a settled principle that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards
On special damages, it is trite law that they have to be specifically pleaded and proved.
The claimant is awarded costs and interests from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Liability 100% General damages Kshs.250,000/= Special damages Kshs. 3,550/= Future medical expenses Kshs.15,000/= Total Kshs.268,550/=
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates the claimant's gender between 'she' and 'he' without explanation
Case number and full party names are not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adhiambo v Bernard (Civil Case E090 of 2025) [2026] SCC 7 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/7/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.