[2008] KEHC 2574 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the adequacy of security at the workplace and the circumstances of the attack. The presence of security lights and a night watchman (though absent at the time) was considered, but the lack of protective gear and the absence of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2574 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Beatrice Wangari Kibui; Respondent: James Ngari Njeru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 9 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Employer Liability, Workplace Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Personal Injury, Assessment of Damages
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beatrice Wangari Kibui
Appellant
James Ngari Njeru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the employer provided adequate security measures at the workplace to discharge the duty of care owed to the employee.
- 2 Whether the apportionment of liability between the parties by the trial magistrate was proper.
- 3 Whether the assessment of general damages for soft tissue injuries was based on correct legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the adequacy of security at the workplace and the circumstances of the attack. The presence of security lights and a night watchman (though absent at the time) was considered, but the lack of protective gear and the absence of the watchman justified the finding of negligence on the part of the employer. The apportionment of liability at 80% to the employer and 20% to the employee was supported by the evidence. The medical evidence was sufficient to establish the nature and extent of the respondent's injuries, which were soft tissue injuries, and the assessment of damages was not so high or low as to...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Civil Appeal 9 of 2005
BEATRICE WANGARI KIBUI……………......…………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAMES NGARI NJERU……………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
On the day fixed for hearing this appeal the Respondent did not attend. The hearing Notice was served. Therefore the appeal was argued by the Appellant in absence of the Respondent. The dispute is about employment contract between the Appellant and the Respondent that the Appellant failed to provide adequate security at the place of work.
In his Judgment the Trial Magistrate found the plaintiff 20% to blame and Defendant 80% and Judgment on award was made accordingly. The Appellant (Defendant in the lower Court) has filed 4 grounds of appeal saying that the Trial Magistrate misdirected himself in finding that adequate measures were taken to provide security to the plaintiff at the place of work (a Petrol Station) and that the Respondent was not the right person to be sued and that medical evidence did not state the extent of the injuries sustained and therefore arrived at the wrong conclusion on the nature and extent of the same and reached at an erroneous estimate of general damages. A perusal of the proceedings shows that the Plaintiff (Respondent) first witness was a medical doctor who testified as to the injuries suffered by the Respondent. He was cross-examined by the Appellant and in my view he gave sufficient evidence to prove the extent of injuries. These were soft tissue injuries and it was the finding of the Trial Magistrate which was not erroneous.
On the issue of security the 2 pump attendants were attacked as they said by 3 robbers at the Petrol Station. The employer had employed a night watchman who was not present when attack took place. No protective gear was provided but there were security lights around. The Defendant claimed that she was employee of the Total Oil Co. Ltd and there was wire fence around the Petrol Station. After considering all the evidence the Trial Magistrate found that both parties were guilty of negligence and he apportioned at 20:80% liability. The Respondent sustained soft tissue injuries as shown by medical evidence and the assessment of the Trial Magistrate does not warrant any interference. The amount is not so high or so low as to be said it was reached on wrong principle of law. I do not see any reason to interfere. If the Defendant was an employee of Total Oil Co. Ltd. She was an agent and was not wrongly sued. After considering all the record I find the appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dated this 18th January, 2008.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
18/1/2008
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue – Clerk
Mr. Kathungu
N/A
Read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE