Court deflates man's 'burst condom' compensation claim in landmark ruling

The High Court recently reached a decision regarding a noteworthy case where a man had sought compensation after an alleged condom burst during sexual intercourse. 

Williamson Omworo's lawsuit targeted Beta Healthcare International Limited, the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), and the Kenya Revenue Authority, claiming that these state agencies had failed to ensure the safety of consumers by endorsing the quality of Zoom Condoms.

Omworo contended that the branded quality mark of assurance on the consignment of Zoom Condoms was misleading, ultimately resulting in the purported bursting of the condom during use. 

However, the court ruled against his claims, dismissing the evidence he presented – a used condom – on the grounds that such evidence held little value. 

The court noted that used condom packets could easily be retrieved from various sources, including entertainment venues' dustbins.

Justice L.N. Mugambi, presiding over the case, emphasized that the absence of testimony from the woman with whom Omworo engaged in sexual intercourse was a significant factor. 

The court highlighted that the presented evidence neither confirmed the usage of the condoms from the packets in question nor established a link between the alleged burst condom and those packets.

"It neither proves that Omworo used the condoms in the packets presented on the material day nor that the condom that burst while allegedly being used by Omworo was in any of those packets," Mugambi said.

Omworo contended that the alleged use of a substandard condom led to him contracting a Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI), which he later transmitted to his wife. 

He argued that the situation could have been averted if the condoms were of better quality.

However, the court cast doubt on Omworo's credibility due to his own admission of infidelity.

The court's verdict questioned the reliability of Omworo's evidence, considering his admission to engaging in extramarital affairs across different towns and counties. 

"This is a man who admits that he is married. That notwithstanding, he says he cheated on his wife with several women, in different towns in various counties. Can any court rely on the sole evidence of such character without corroboration?" the court stated.

This case has sparked discussions about the importance of ensuring the accuracy of quality assurances on consumer products, particularly those related to public health and safety. 

The court's dismissal of the compensation claim highlights the significance of robust evidence and corroborative testimonies in legal proceedings.