[2019] KEHC 8757 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8757 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship between himself and the appellant, which was fundamental to the claim of negligence. Without proof of this relationship, there was no duty of care owed by the appellant to the respondent. The court further held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 8757 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Arthur Gitonga Gitau; Respondent: RWW (Suing through father and next friend CW)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Case Number
Civil Appeal 93 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; lower court judgment set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
AM Githinji
Legal Topics
Employer Liability, Burden of Proof, Negligence, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
english
Tort Law Civil Procedure Employer Liability Burden of Proof Negligence Quantum of Damages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Gitonga Gitau

Appellant

RWW (Suing through father and next friend CW)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent established the employer-employee relationship.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court shifted the burden of proof to the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was liable for negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship between himself and the appellant, which was fundamental to the claim of negligence. Without proof of this relationship, there was no duty of care owed by the appellant to the respondent. The court further held that even if the appellant owned the sheller, ownership alone did not establish an employment relationship or a duty of care. The trial court did not err in shifting the burden of proof regarding facts especially within the appellant's knowledge, such as ownership of the sheller, but ultimately, the respondent's failure to prove the employment relationship was fatal to his...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; lower court judgment set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The judgment of the lower court is set aside.