A road accident case in Makueni has highlighted the importance of promptly reporting crashes and preserving evidence, after a motorcyclist lost his compensation claim because he could not prove that a tractor was involved in the accident.
In the case, George Kitili Makovo had appealed a magistrate ruling seeking Sh2.5 million compensation.
He said he was riding his motorcycle along Ndilinge-Kasikeu Road on March 5, 2022, when tractor KTCB 849S knocked him down.
He suffered serious injuries, including a fractured frontal bone, and a fractured right thigh.
But the High Court in Makueni has upheld the dismissal of his claim against Cosmas Ndeti Maitha, John Mutungi and Dominic Muange Katithi.
In his August 21 ruling, Justice John Onyiego found that Makovo had failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the tractor to the accident.
The case offers a practical lesson to road crash victims: Report accidents promptly, preserve evidence from the scene and ensure witnesses and police records are properly documented.
The accident allegedly occurred on March 5, 2022, but the police abstract was issued on October 26, 2023.
Justice Onyiego acknowledged that there was no fixed deadline for obtaining a police abstract but questioned why the accident had taken so long to report.
The explanation that Makovo’s injuries and metal implants made it difficult for him to report the accident did not convince the court.
The lesson for accident victims is straightforward. A crash should be reported as soon as possible, while details are still fresh and witnesses, vehicles and the scene can be traced.
Makovo relied heavily on the police abstract, which identified the tractor and named Maitha as its driver.
He had limited information about the accident and did not produce a sketch map or an occurrence book extract.
For victims, the case demonstrates why a police abstract should not be treated as the only evidence.
Photographs of the scene, details of eyewitnesses, vehicle inspection records and medical records can help create a clearer picture of what happened.
Maitha denied driving the tractor and said he was in Kajiado doing casual work on the day of the accident.
The court further noted that two traffic cases had been filed over the alleged accident involving different people.
The judge observed that this “shows that even the appellant himself was not sure of who the tractor driver was.”
This made it particularly important for Makovo to produce independent evidence connecting Maitha to the tractor.
The judge found that he did not produce any independent evidence to connect the driver to the tractor on the material day.”
High Court in Makueni has upheld the dismissal of his claim because he could not prove that a tractor was involved in the accident.
The lower court described the injuries as “extensive with long-term implications for mobility and neurological function”
Justice Onyiego explained: “There is medical evidence showing that the appellant sustained injuries but there is no evidence that a third party was involved.”
The court therefore found that the evidence did not establish that the tractor had collided with Makovo’s motorcycle.
The first priority is medical treatment. But once the victim is safe, the circumstances of the crash should also be documented.
Witnesses should be identified. The location should be recorded. Where possible, photographs of the scene and vehicles should be preserved.
Makovo’s case shows the danger of relying on a single document when the other side disputes how the accident happened.
The court ultimately found that “liability of the respondents was not established” and upheld the dismissal of the case.
Had he succeeded in proving responsibility, the lower court had assessed general damages at Sh1.9 million, future medical expenses at Sh100,000 and special damages at Sh103,765.
But because the court found that responsibility for the accident had not been proved, Makovo was not awarded the Sh2.5 million compensation he had sought.
