https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13127

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU** **CIVIL APPEAL NO. E 205 OF 2024** **DK RONO, J** **2 JULY 2026** **BETWEEN** **BULTO SUPPLIERS & TRANSPORTERS COMPANY LTD .................. APPELLANT** **AND** **CATHERINE KARWITHA ........................................................................ RESPONDENT** **(***Being an appeal from the Judgment of the Adjudicator at Meru Small Claims Court, Hon. LW Maina delivered on 23rd September in SCCC NO. E602 of 2024)* **JUDGMENT** 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Small Claims Courtin SCCC NO. E602 of 2024 at Meru, delivered by Hon. LW Maina on 23rd September 2024. 2. The Appellant, Bulto Suppliers & Transporters Company Ltd, was the Respondent in the lower court, where the current Respondent, Catherine Karwitha was the Plaintiff. 3. The Plaintiff’s (Respondent’s) claim in the lower court as against the Defendant (Appellant) was for Material loss claim and attendant costs amounting to Kshs. 315,362.00, the Respondent’s claim was on or about 4th August 2022, the Respondent ,her authorised driver, servant and/or agent was lawfully driving Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCV 931 B along Meru-Nanyuki road at around Kwa Makara area when the Appellant, its authorised driver, servant and/or agent so negligently and carelessly drove Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBS 373 Q along the same road that they caused and /or permitted the same to collide into the respondents vehicle hence suffering extensive loss. 4. The Defendant (Appellant) in its undated Memorandum of response denied the claim and particularly stated that it sold the Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBS 373 Q to one Mohamed Elema Guyo after full payment of the consideration, they further stated that the said purchaser was to cater for the cost and process of registration of the said Motor Vehicle to his name. 5. The dispute between the parties proceeded to hearing before the trial court with a judgement being delivered in favour of the Respondent in the following terms; Liability was assessed at 100% against the Appellant, the Respondent was awarded Kshs 252,433/=, Costs of the suit and interest at court rates until payment in full. 6. Being aggrieved of the decision rendered by the trial court the Appellant moved this Court on several grounds, primarily contending that the learned Adjudicator erred by: Relying solely on a motor vehicle search to establish ownership of vehicle KBS 373Q; Failing to recognize a sale agreement dated 11th February 2018 as conclusive evidence of transfer of ownership; Finding that it was the Appellant's responsibility to issue a third-party notice to the alleged current owner of the vehicle. 7. Before considering the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to restate the scope of this court's jurisdiction in appeals emanating from the Small Claims Court. 8. My Considered view is that the jurisdiction of this court is circumscribed by the provisions of the Small Claims Act which provides specifically inSection 38(1) of the Small Claims Court Act provides that: *‘A person aggrieved by the decision or order of the Court may appeal against that decision or order to the High Court on matters of law.’* 1. Consequently, this court does not sit as a first appellate court capable of re-evaluating facts and substituting its own findings merely because it would have reached a different conclusion. Its jurisdiction is restricted to determining whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts before it. 2. In *Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another v Republic* [2018] KECA 743 (KLR)**,** the Court of Appeal reiterated that where an appeal is confined to matters of law, an appellate court must respect findings of fact unless they are unsupported by evidence or amount to a perverse conclusion. 3. Similarly, in *Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo*[2010] eKLR**,** the Court of Appeal observed that on a second appeal an appellate court confines itself to matters of law unless it is demonstrated that the courts below considered irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or reached a decision that is plainly perverse. 4. The same position was adopted in *Wanjiru v Kiilu*(2024) KEHC 8881 (KLR)**,** where the High Court held that appeals from the Small Claims Court are limited to questions of law and that factual findings may only be interfered with where they are so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have reached them. 5. Accordingly, the issue before this court is whether the learned adjudicator committed any error of law warranting interference with the judgment rendered. 6. This court having perused the record of appeal and the pleadings by parties considers that the primary issues for this Court to determine are: 7. Whether the learned Adjudicator was correct in establishing ownership through the official motor vehicle search. 8. Whether the Appellant bore the burden of joining the alleged purchaser through third-party proceedings. 1. *Whether ownership of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBS 373Q was properly established through the official motor vehicle search* 2. The Appellant's principal contention is that it ceased being the owner of motor vehicle registration number KBS 373Q upon executing a sale agreement dated 11th February 2018 and therefore could not be held liable for any accident involving the said vehicle thereafter. 3. This court is of the considered view that the starting point is Section 8 of the Traffic Act, Chapter 403 Laws of Kenya, which provides: "The person in whose name a vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle." 1. My considered view is that the effect of the provision is that registration is not conclusive proof of ownership, but it creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership. The burden therefore rests upon the party seeking to displace that statutory presumption. This view is fortified by the Court of Appeal decision in *Osapil v Kaddy [2000] 1 EA 187* where it authoritatively held that registration records maintained by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles constitute prima facie evidence of ownership and that the registered owner remains liable unless satisfactory evidence is tendered to rebut the statutory presumption. The Court emphasized that third parties dealing with motor vehicles are entitled to rely upon the official records maintained by the Registrar. 2. The above position was affirmed in *Securicor Kenya Ltd v Kyumba Holdings Ltd [2005] eKLR,* where the Court of Appeal observed that while ownership may in appropriate circumstances be established by evidence other than a logbook, registration remains the primary indicator of ownership and any party asserting otherwise bears the evidential burden of proving the alternative ownership.This position was further clarified in *Joel Muga Opija v East African Sea Food Ltd [2013] eKLR*, where the Court held that a certificate of official search from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles constitutes sufficient prima facie proof of ownership and shifts the burden to the person disputing such ownership. 3. The Respondent herein produced an official motor vehicle search demonstrating that the Appellant remained the registered owner of motor vehicle KBS 373Q. That evidence established a statutory presumption in her favour. The Appellant sought to rebut that presumption through a sale agreement allegedly executed in 2018. 4. My considered view is that a sale agreement merely evidences an intention to transfer proprietary interests between contracting parties. It does not, without more, effect a transfer recognizable against third parties where the statutory records remain unchanged. 5. The Court of Appeal addressed a similar issue in *Thuranira Karauri v Agnes Ncheche [1997] eKLR,* where it held that ownership of a motor vehicle for purposes of third-party claims is ordinarily established through registration records and that parties who fail to complete statutory transfer procedures cannot avoid liability to innocent third parties by relying solely on private arrangements. 6. The rationale underlying this principle is self-evident. Public registries exist to provide certainty and predictability in legal relations. A victim of a road traffic accident cannot reasonably be expected to investigate private contractual arrangements unknown to the public. Such a claimant is entitled to rely upon the official records maintained by the State. 7. This Court therefore agrees with the learned Adjudicator that greater evidential weight properly attached to the official search than to the unperfected sale agreement relied upon by the Appellant. The sale agreement may have regulated rights as between the Appellant and the alleged purchaser, but it did not extinguish the Appellant's ostensible ownership as against third parties. Accordingly, I find and hold that the learned Adjudicator cannot be faulted for finding that the Appellant remained the owner of record and therefore properly answerable to the Respondent. 8. *Whether the Appellant bore the responsibility of instituting third-party proceedings* 9. The second ground of Appeal advanced by the Appellant is that the learned Adjudicator improperly placed upon it the burden of issuing a third-party notice to the alleged purchaser of the motor vehicle. Third-party proceedings exist precisely to enable a defendant who alleges that another person should indemnify or contribute towards any liability to bring such person before the court so that all connected disputes may be determined in one proceeding. 10. The Court of Appeal has had an opportunity to restate the law with respect to this particular subject in *Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Suntra Investment Bank Ltd [2015] eKLR* where it reiterated that where a defendant claims indemnity or contribution against a non-party, the proper procedural course is to invoke third-party proceedings. Failure to do so leaves the court to determine the dispute only as between the parties properly before it. 11. Likewise, in *Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) [2015] eKLR*, the Court observed that litigation is conducted within the framework established by the pleadings and parties before the court. A court cannot determine rights or liabilities of persons who have not been joined to the proceedings and afforded an opportunity to be heard. 12. The Appellant's defence was essentially that another person had become the beneficial owner of the motor vehicle and should therefore bear responsibility. Once that position was taken, the procedural burden shifted to the Appellant to bring that person before the court through third-party proceedings. 13. The Respondent, having obtained an official search showing the Appellant as the registered owner, discharged her obligation. She was not under any legal duty to investigate private transactions allegedly undertaken years earlier between the Appellant and third parties. 14. The Court of Appeal in *Trust Bank Limited v Amalo Company Limited [2002] eKLR* emphasized that a litigant is bound by the case it elects to present and must utilize available procedural mechanisms if it seeks relief against another person. Courts are not expected to reconstruct a party's case or introduce parties whom the litigant itself has chosen not to join. 15. This court is of the considered view that if the Appellant genuinely intended to shift liability to the alleged purchaser, nothing prevented it from invoking the provisions relating to third-party notices and seeking indemnity or contribution. Having failed to do so, it cannot now fault either the Respondent or the learned Adjudicator for determining liability on the basis of the parties and evidence properly before the court. 16. Consequently, this court is of the view that the learned Adjudicator correctly held that any claim against the alleged purchaser was a matter that ought to have been pursued through third-party proceedings. 17. The sum total of the above findings is that the instant appeal lacks merit and is consequently dismissed with costs to the respondent 18. It is so ordered Dated, Signed and Delivered Virtually at Meru this 2nd day of July 2026. **DK RONO** **JUDGE**