https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7628

Auto Industries Ltd v Wambisi & 3 others (Civil Appeal E089 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7628 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7628 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Civil Appeal E089 of 2025 EN Maina, J May 28, 2026 Between Auto Industries Limited Appellant and Boniface Namikasa Wambisi 1st Respondent Platinum Miles Autor Spares Ltd 2nd Respondent Mogo Auto Limited 3rd Respondent Ben Kipchumba Meli 4th Respondent (Being an appeal against the judgment and decree of Hon. Martha Nanzushi (SPM) at Mavoko Chief Magistrate’s Court in CMCC No.E319 of 2022 delivered on 4th April 2025) Judgment 1.By this appeal the appellant impugns the judgment of the court below which found it liable in a claim for compensation for personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, even though the court had found a third party wholly liable for the accident giving rise to that claim. 2.The appeal is premised on grounds that:“(1)That the magistrate erred in law and in fact by issuing a contradictory and fatally flawed judgment on liability, having found that the 3rd third party was 100% liable for the accident, yet inexplicably entered judgment against the defendant and not against the said 3rd party directly.(2)That the magistrate erred in law in ordering indemnity in favour of the defendant against the 3rd party, despite the fact that: -the defendant did not enjoin the 3rd party into the proceedings; - the defendant did not plead or pray for indemnity; - The defendant has no privity of contract or agency with the 3rd third party; - It was the 1st third party that brought in the 3rd third party under third party proceedings, not the appellant. (3)The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by placing reliance on inconclusive and unsubstantiated police evidence. The police officer:- - did not investigate the accident and was not the investigating officer; - had no sketch plan, no police file and no accident analysis; - Could not identify the rider or attribute blame; - Her evidence was entirely hearsay and non-probative, and yet the court improperly relied on it to bolster the plaintiffs case. (4)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding the Appellant liable despite uncontroverted evidence that: - the motor cycle was no longer in its possession or control; - the 3rd third party was the equitable and beneficial owner and was in full control at the time of the accident; -there was no employer-employee or principal-agent relationship between the defendant and the 3rd third party. (5)That the magistrate erred in law by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur inappropriately and in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence showing the defendant’s negligence or vicarious liability.(6)The learned magistrate misdirected herself on the burden of proof, by accepting mere assertions unsupported by primary evidence, contrary to well-established legal principles that pleadings are not evidence and require proof.(7)That the magistrate erred in fact and law by issuing an award for general and special damages against the defendant despite making a firm finding that the 3rd third party was solely liable – thereby issuing a contradictory decree incapable of enforcement.” 3.The brief facts of this case were that on 25th October 2021 the 1st respondent was a pillion passenger on motor cycle registration no. KMFQ 652 Y which was involved in an accident as a result of which he sustained serious injuries – fracture of the 4th and 5th ribs on the left side. The 1st respondent blamed the rider of the motor cycle for what he described as driving at a very high speed. The appellant herein was sued as the registered owner of the motor cycle. During the course of the proceedings the appellant took out third party proceedings against the 2nd and 3rd respondents who in turn took out third party proceedings against the 4th respondent for reason that they had merely financed him to purchase the motor cycle. The 4th respondent did not enter appearance in the suit or file a defence. In her judgment the learned magistrate found that the 2nd and 3rd parties (the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein) were merely financiers whose names appeared on the motor cycle’s logbook in order to protest their interest and hence they could not be blamed for the accident which occurred while the motor cycle was in the possession and control of the 4th respondent. The motor cycle was still registered in the appellant’s name as at 3rd February 2022 hence the finding of liability against it. 4.Having carefully considered the evidence in the court below, I am satisfied that the accident did in fact occur and that the rider of the motor cycle in which the 1st respondent was but a fare paying passenger was negligent and hence liable to the 1st respondent in damages. Although the appellant (the defendant in the court below) took out third party proceedings against parties who were absolved from blame, the motor cycle was still registered in its name and so the learned magistrate was correct in finding that it could not be found directly liable as it did not have possession and control of the motor cycle. The person who was in possession and control of the motor cycle at the time of the accident was the 4th respondent (3rd third party) but because the 1st respondent’s claim was against the appellant and indeed it was still the registered owner, liability was determined between it and the 1st respondent (plaintiff in the case). The appellant could nevertheless claim indemnity from the third party who was found at fault. That is the essence of third party proceedings as provided in Order 1 Rule 21(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules) and the learned magistrate cannot be faulted for arriving at the decision she did. The Rule states:“ 21.Judgment after trial against third party in default [Order 1, rule 21](1)Where a third party makes default in entering an appearance in the suit, and the suit is tried and results in favour of the plaintiff, the court may either at or after the trial enter such judgment as the nature of the suit may require for the defendant giving notice against the third party:Provided that execution thereof shall not be issued without leave of the court, until after satisfaction by such defendant of the decree against him.” 5.The upshot is that this appeal is not merited and it is dismissed, the judgment and decree of the court below is upheld. 6.Costs follow the event and hence the appellant shall bear the costs of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents. Orders accordingly. JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.E. N. MAINAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms Wambui for Odanga for AppellantMs Nyanjiru for 2nd RespondentMary - Court Assistant/Interpreter