[1985] KEHC 27 (KLR)

[1985] KEHC 27 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs were severely beaten by the first and second defendants during a raid at Garsen. Medical evidence corroborated the plaintiffs' accounts of their injuries. The court rejected the defence that the force used was necessary for effecting an arrest, noting that neither resistance nor justification for such violence was established. The discrepancies in the plaintiffs' testimonies were minor and did not undermine their credibility. The Attorney-General, as employer, was held vicariously liable for the torts committed by the first and second defendants in the course of their employment. The court awarded general and special damages as agreed by the parties,...

Citation
[1985] KEHC 27 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bakero Boba; Plaintiff: Guyo Sauveni; Defendant: Omar Jarso; Defendant: Unnamed Second Defendant; Defendant: Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 October 1985
Case Number
Civil Case 325 & 326 of 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against all defendants jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
Assault and Battery, Vicarious Liability, Damages Quantification, Government Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Assault and Battery Vicarious Liability Damages Quantification Government Liability

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakero Boba

Plaintiff

Guyo Sauveni

Plaintiff

Omar Jarso

Defendant

Unnamed Second Defendant

Defendant

Attorney-General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second defendants unlawfully assaulted the plaintiffs during the course of their arrest.
  2. 2 Whether the force used by the defendants was excessive and unjustified under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the Attorney-General is vicariously liable for the acts of the first and second defendants as their employer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were severely beaten by the first and second defendants during a raid at Garsen. Medical evidence corroborated the plaintiffs' accounts of their injuries. The court rejected the defence that the force used was necessary for effecting an arrest, noting that neither resistance nor justification for such violence was established. The discrepancies in the plaintiffs' testimonies were minor and did not undermine their credibility. The Attorney-General, as employer, was held vicariously liable for the torts committed by the first and second defendants in the course of their employment. The court awarded general and special damages as agreed by the parties,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against all defendants jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the plaintiffs jointly and severally the sum of Kshs 17,105 as general and special damages.
  • Defendants to pay costs of the suit and interest.