The High Court in Malindi has ruled that compensation following a fatal road accident is not automatic, with claimants required to prove that negligence by the person being sued caused or contributed to the death.
In a judgment delivered on October 9, Justice A.K. Ndung’u overturned a lower court decision that had awarded damages following a fatal road accident, finding that the evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the other driver.
The case arose from a collision between a motor vehicle and a motorcycle on February 8, 2022, in the Petrocity area of Mtwapa Township. The accident resulted in the death of the motorist.
The deceased’s legal representatives subsequently filed a suit against the other driver and Equity Bank Kenya Limited, seeking compensation under the Law Reform Act and the Fatal Accidents Act.
The claim included general damages, funeral expenses and special damages of KSh30,550.
In January 2025, the trial court apportioned 80 per cent liability to the deceased and 20 per cent to the other driver. It awarded KSh100,000 for pain and suffering, KSh300,000 for loss of expectation of life, KSh500,000 for loss of dependency and KSh30,550 in special damages.
Why the High Court Overturned the Decision
In re-examining the evidence, Justice A.K. Ndung’u relied heavily on the testimony of the sole eyewitness to the crash, whose account indicated that the motorcycle moved out of its lane and collided with an oncoming vehicle.
Also Read: High Court Delivers Verdict on Sending Home CJ Koome and Entire Supreme Court
That testimony matched the findings contained in the police records produced before the trial court. However, the court noted that the police officer who testified had not witnessed the accident and was relying on information recorded in the Occurrence Book and other investigation documents.
The judgment further explained that while a police abstract can confirm that an accident occurred and identify those involved, it is not proof of negligence.
After reviewing the record, the court found no indication of speeding, careless driving, failure to keep a proper lookout, or any other conduct that would have amounted to negligence on the part of the motorist facing the claim.
Nor was there evidence showing that the collision could reasonably have been avoided.
“The mere existence of a duty of care does not establish negligence,” Justice Ndung’u observed.
The court said it was not enough to show that a crash occurred; claimants had to prove a specific act or omission that caused or contributed to the accident.
Because no such evidence was presented, the High Court concluded that the lower court had wrongly apportioned liability and placed full responsibility for the crash on the deceased rider.
Why the Court Rejected the Loss of Dependency Claim
The High Court also examined the compensation awarded for loss of dependency, a claim intended to compensate eligible family members for financial support they would have received from the deceased.
Also Read: Did the High Court Stop Lamu Refinery Groundbreaking? What the Ruling Means
The family argued that Moiben was 26 years old and worked as a manager at Tizi Hauliers Limited, earning KSh200,000 per month.
They urged the court to calculate compensation using a 40-year multiplier and a one-third dependency ratio, which would have resulted in an award of KSh32 million.
However, Justice Ndung’u explained that establishing a person’s income does not automatically prove that they financially supported particular dependants.
The High Court held that claimants must provide evidence identifying the dependants, establishing their relationship with the deceased and demonstrating the financial support they received.
It further stated that the extent of dependency must be established to the extent the available evidence permits.
The judge found that the trial court erred in adopting the global approach to calculating loss of dependency because the evidence had not first proved dependency.
The ruling emphasised that a claim for loss of dependency requires more than assertions about the deceased’s earnings or the existence of family relationships.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
