[2007] KEHC 1524 (KLR)
The court held that the appellant's plea of guilty to the charge of careless driving was conclusive evidence of negligence and liability for the accident. The trial court was correct in finding the appellant liable for the damage to the respondent's vehicle. However, the award for loss of use was set aside because...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1524 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Broadways Bakery Limited; Respondent: Jeremiah Muhindi Gikombo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 6 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal partially allowed; award for loss of use set aside; damages for repairs upheld; respondent awarded ¾ costs of appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Special Damages, Loss of Use
- 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
Broadways Bakery Limited
Appellant
Jeremiah Muhindi Gikombo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty to careless driving is conclusive evidence of negligence in the civil claim.
- 2 Whether the respondent proved special damages for loss of use of his motor vehicle.
- 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to contribution or counterclaim for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant's plea of guilty to the charge of careless driving was conclusive evidence of negligence and liability for the accident. The trial court was correct in finding the appellant liable for the damage to the respondent's vehicle. However, the award for loss of use was set aside because the respondent failed to provide documentary proof of special damages as required by law. The appellant's counterclaim failed as the plea of guilty determined negligence conclusively. The only successful ground of appeal was the challenge to the award for loss of use, which was not proved to the required standard.
Court Disposition
Appeal partially allowed; award for loss of use set aside; damages for repairs upheld; respondent awarded ¾ costs of appeal.
Orders
- The award of Ksh.21,000 for loss of use is set aside.
- The award of Ksh.75,718 for repairs to the respondent's vehicle is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Appeal 6 of 1999
BROADWAYS BAKERY LIMITED……..…………….....……….APPELLANTS
Versus
JEREMIAH MUHINDI GIKOMBO....……………………..…..….RESPONDENT
(Being appeal from the Judgment of the senior Principal Magistrate, Embu in his Civil Case Number 477 of 1999 delivered on 15th January 1999)
JUDGMENT
The Respondent’s claim in the lower court was for compensation for damage to his motor vehicle registration number KVN 831. This vehicle was damaged in an accident with the 1st Defendant’s car registration number KUZ 763. The Respondent claimed that the accident was as a result of the negligence of the Appellant. He claimed for special damages of Ksh. 104,103/=. He also claimed for general damages for non user of his motor vehicle.
The Respondent in his evidence stated that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the Appellant who on being charged with the offence of careless driving pleaded guilty. The Respondent had his car assessed for the damage by Huduma Garage. They assessed the damage to be the value of Ksh.136,945/=. The Respondent produced before court that assessment. The Respondent also in evidence claimed to have been earning Ksh3,000/= per day in the use of his motor vehicle. He however, failed to prove that loss by documentary evidence. The Appellant in evidence through the 2nd Defendant admitted that the accident did occur but attributed it to the Respondent’s negligence saying that the Respondent overtook his vehicle and proceeded to stop without any indication. As a result the Appellant’s vehicle knocked the Appellant’s vehicle at the back. He admitted pleading guilty to the criminal charge. The Appellant’s vehicle was repaired at the cost of Ksh.30,000/=. The Appellant called a witness who described himself as a surveyor/engineer. He had prepared a report of the assessment of the repairs required on the Respondent’s vehicle which showed that the repairs would cost Ksh75,718/=. He said that the vehicle had a pre-accident value of Ksh.130,000/=.
The trial court in its judgment made a finding that the Appellant having pleaded guilty was conclusive evidence that he was the one negligent and therefore caused the accident to happen.
The Appellant in ground No. 3 in their Memorandum of Appeal stated that the plea of guilt was not a bar to their claim for contribution in the counter claim. They had made a counter claim for 40,000/=. I am of the view that the lower court was correct in its finding that the entry on the Appellant’s own plea was conclusive in determining the one who was negligent and who caused the accident. It ought to be noted that the entry of guilt was not after the trial but it was on his own plea. That ground of appeal therefore does fail. The lower court awarded judgment to the Respondent for Ksh.75,718/= in respect of the damage to the motor vehicle. It further awarded the Respondent for loss of user at the rate Ksh.1,000/= per day for three weeks. The total award for loss of user was Ksh.21,000/-. The 1st ground in the Memorandum of Appeal attacks this award. It however, should be noted that it was the Appellant’s own expert witness who gave the value of the Respondent’s repair at Ksh75,718/=. The Respondent in his evidence said he had not repaired the vehicle because he lacked the money to do the repairs. In those circumstances one cannot expect the Respondent to have produced receipts before court. That ground of appeal therefore is rejected.
Ground No. 2 attacks the award of loss of use. The court does accept the argument of the Appellant on this ground. It is correct that there was no proof produced by the Respondent. That on the claim for loss of use being in the nature of special damages could only be granted on documentary proof being produced before court. Accordingly that ground of appeal does succeed. On the Appellant’s counter claim raised in grounds No. 4, 5 and 6 the court finds that the lower court having made a finding on the party that was negligent in causing the accident the Appellant could not succeed in its counterclaim. As stated before the lower court was correct in its finding that the Appellant’s plea of guilt was conclusive in determining who was negligent. Accordingly the Appellant’s counter claim could not succeed and the lower court’s finding cannot be faulted. The court therefore finds in this judgment that it is only the award of loss of use of Ksh.21,000/= which will succeed in this appeal. The lower court judgment is therefore set aside to that extent only. The Respondent is awarded ¾ of costs of this appeal.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 2nd day of November 2007.
By: M. S. A. MAKHANDIA
JUDGE