Latest News
Court Awards KSh1 Million to Mombasa Pedestrian Hit by Consolbase Tanker at Zebra Crossing
For Mohamed Bakari Mwaruwaga, crossing the highway ended with a devastating collision and serious injuries.
Four years later, the courts have finally settled who should bear the blame.
The Mombasa High Court has overturned a 50:50 liability finding against Mwaruwaga.
Justice Ngaah Jairus instead found Consolbase Transfreight Logistics entirely responsible for the accident.
The ruling restores Mwaruwaga’s full compensation of KSh1.041 million, before interest.
It also delivers a pointed lesson about evidence and contributory negligence.
The accident happened on March 18, 2022, near Miritini stage.
Mwaruwaga was crossing the Nairobi-Mombasa Highway when a Consolbase tanker struck him.
He said he was using a zebra crossing when the tanker failed to slow.
The impact left him with serious injuries to his right hand and leg.
His injuries included fractures and severe degloving injuries affecting his hand, leg, and knee.
Mwaruwaga later sued the logistics company, blaming its driver for negligent driving.
He told the trial court that he was nearly across the intersection when the tanker struck him.
That account would eventually become the decisive evidence before the High Court.
Half Blame
The original case took a very different turn before Principal Magistrate L.K. Sindani.
The magistrate accepted that Mwaruwaga’s evidence was not contravened by Consolbase.
Yet the court still divided responsibility equally between the two sides.
The magistrate questioned whether Mwaruwaga had independently proved the zebra crossing existed.
The court also considered the driver’s failure to face criminal charges significant.
It further reasoned that Mwaruwaga could have avoided the approaching tanker.
That decision reduced his assessed compensation from KSh1.041 million to KSh520,615.
Mwaruwaga appealed, challenging only the liability finding and not the damages.
Consolbase defended the decision while also attacking the appeal on procedural grounds.
The company argued that Mwaruwaga initially lacked an extracted decree within his appeal record.
Justice Ngaah rejected that objection because the missing decree was later properly supplied.
The certified decree was filed before the appeal hearing, curing the earlier procedural defect.
The judge then turned to what happened on the highway.
And that is where the case became increasingly difficult for Consolbase.
Mwaruwaga was the only eyewitness who personally described the collision.
His testimony survived cross-examination and remained materially unshaken.
Consolbase, meanwhile, called no witness to provide an alternative account.
No company witness explained what its driver did immediately before impact.
Evidence Matters
Justice Ngaah accepted that Mwaruwaga carried the initial burden of proving negligence.
That burden remained his, even though Consolbase called no defence witness.
But the judge stressed that sufficient evidence can establish liability without corroboration.
Mwaruwaga had given direct evidence describing both the collision and the driver’s conduct.
His evidence was tested during cross-examination but remained essentially intact.
Consolbase offered nothing that could contradict that account.
The judge therefore rejected the demand for another witness confirming the zebra crossing.
A credible single witness can prove a fact through sworn testimony.
The law does not require someone to independently corroborate their own evidence.
Justice Ngaah found the trial court had therefore imposed an unnecessary evidential hurdle.
Consolbase also pointed to the absence of a police sketch map.
But the judge rejected any adverse inference against Mwaruwaga over that missing document.
A police sketch normally remains within police custody rather than the claimant’s possession.
Mwaruwaga could not fairly be punished for failing to produce unavailable police evidence.
Blame Unproved
The biggest problem for Consolbase was its failure to prove contributory negligence.
The company had pleaded that Mwaruwaga contributed to his own injuries.
But pleading an allegation and proving it are two very different things.
Consolbase needed evidence showing careless conduct by Mwaruwaga.
It also needed to demonstrate how that conduct contributed to the collision.
The company produced no such evidence during the trial.
Instead, its lawyers argued that Mwaruwaga failed to keep a proper lookout.
They also claimed he could have seen the tanker and avoided the collision.
Justice Ngaah found those claims unsupported by testimony or other evidence.
“No witness deposed to them,” the judge observed in rejecting those assertions.
He added a memorable reminder that “submissions are not evidence.”
The trial court had therefore placed an impossible burden on Mwaruwaga.
It effectively required him to prove that he played no part in causing the accident.
Yet the legal burden required Consolbase to prove his alleged contribution.
The judge found that the magistrate had consequently reversed the proper burden.
Justice Ngaah also rejected reliance on the driver’s failure to face criminal charges.
Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, unlike civil negligence claims.
A failure to prosecute therefore cannot establish that civil negligence did not occur.
The judge adopted similar reasoning from the earlier Mary Njeri Murigi decision.
That case also rejected automatic blame against pedestrians using designated crossing points.
It emphasised motorists’ responsibility to exercise care around lawful road users.
Full Award
Justice Ngaah ultimately identified three errors in the magistrate’s reasoning.
The court demanded unnecessary corroboration, found unsupported contributory negligence, and misread non-prosecution.
Once those errors were removed, the evidence pointed firmly in one direction.
Mwaruwaga’s account remained credible, direct, and completely unchallenged.
Consolbase had provided no evidence establishing any contribution by the injured pedestrian.
The High Court therefore substituted 100 per cent liability against Consolbase.
The original damages assessment remained unchanged because neither side challenged quantum.
Mwaruwaga was awarded KSh800,000 in general damages for his injuries.
He also received KSh144,000 for future medical expenses and KSh97,230 special damages.
That brought the total award to KSh1,041,230 before applicable interest.
The difference is significant because the original judgement had awarded only KSh520,615.
The High Court has effectively restored the other half of Mwaruwaga’s compensation.
Interest will apply at court rates from different dates for each damages category.
The court also ordered Consolbase to pay costs for both the appeal and original suit.
For Mwaruwaga, the ruling closes a four-year legal battle with a decisive victory.
For defendants, it carries an equally clear warning about unsupported allegations.
Contributory negligence cannot simply be asserted and then deducted from compensation.
It must be proved through evidence showing actual conduct and meaningful contribution.
And for pedestrians, the ruling reinforces their legitimate right to use Kenyan roads.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.