A motorcyclist lost his compensation claim because he could not prove that a tractor was involved in the accident.
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.
One of the biggest challenges in Makovo’s case was the delay in obtaining a police abstract.
Also Read: My husband was sent away with Sh200,000 after hand was severed at work. Was justice served?
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 judge said the circumstances “make it appear like pursuing the case was an afterthought.”
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.
But the police officer who testified was not the investigating officer.
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.
The identity of the alleged tractor driver also became contentious.
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.
That created doubt about the identity of the driver.
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.”
There was no dispute that Makovo had been injured.
Medical evidence showed serious head and orthopaedic injuries.
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”
But proving injuries was not the same as proving who caused them.
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 ruling shows why accident victims and their families should act quickly after a crash.
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.
Police reports and medical records should also be kept safely.
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.
The irony of the case is that the court accepted the seriousness of Makovo’s injuries.
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.
The High Court found the proposed Sh1.9 million award “fair and reasonable in the circumstances.”
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.
Follow ourWhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
