[2019] KEHC 2098 (KLR)
The court found that there were two conflicting versions of how the accident occurred: the police record blamed the deceased, while an eyewitness blamed the driver. The appellant did not testify to clarify the circumstances. In situations where it is not possible to determine blame based on the evidence, both...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 2098 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Wesonga Mbingi; Respondent: Clementine Adero Oyugi; Respondent: Simba Colt Motors Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 15 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part on liability; liability apportioned at 50:50 between appellant and respondent; quantum of damages undisturbed.
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Road Traffic Accidents, Apportionment of Liability, Damages Assessment
- 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
Charles Wesonga Mbingi
Appellant
Clementine Adero Oyugi
Respondent
Simba Colt Motors Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in apportioning liability at 70:30% in favour of the 1st respondent.
- 2 Whether the evidence adduced at trial sufficiently established liability against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were two conflicting versions of how the accident occurred: the police record blamed the deceased, while an eyewitness blamed the driver. The appellant did not testify to clarify the circumstances. In situations where it is not possible to determine blame based on the evidence, both parties should be held equally liable. The trial magistrate erred in apportioning liability at 70:30% in favour of the respondent; instead, liability should be apportioned at 50:50 between the appellant and the respondent. There was no appeal against the quantum of damages, so the damages awarded remain undisturbed.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part on liability; liability apportioned at 50:50 between appellant and respondent; quantum of damages undisturbed.
Orders
- Liability apportioned at 50:50 between appellant and 1st respondent.
- Each party to bear half costs in the trial court and on appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2011
BETWEEN
CHARLES WESONGA MBINGI ...........................................................................APPELANT
AND
CLEMENTINE ADERO OYUGI ................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
SIMBA COLT MOTORS LTD ....................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the Judgment in Busia Chief Magistrate’s Court civil case No.229 of 2008 by Hon. E.H. Keago - Senior Resident Magistrate).
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant herein, was the 1st defendant in the Busia Chief Magistrate’s Court civil case number 229 of 2008 He had been sued for special and general damages due to a road accident involving motor vehicle KAG 966Q and the deceased who was a pedal cyclist along Busia – Kisumu road.
2. After the hearing of the case the learned trial magistrate made awards as follows:-
a) Pain and suffering kshs.20, 000/=.
b) Loss of expectation kshs.100000/=.
c) Loss of dependency I will award kshs.300, 000/=.
d) Special damages of kshs.49, 800.
The learned trial magistrate apportioned liability at 70:30% favour of the 1st respondent. After factoring in contribution, the balance was a sum of Kshs.328, 860/=. This is the sum that he entered judgment in favour of the 1st respondent.
3. The appellant was aggrieved by the ruling and filed this appeal. He was represented by the firm of Ashioya & Company Advocates. In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant set out two grounds of appeal as follows:
a) The learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the weight of evidence militated against any liability in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
b) That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the evidence adduced at the trial substantially and wholly blames the deceased for the accident.
4. The 1st respondent was represented by the firm of F. Omondi & Company Advocates. He contended that the appeal lacked merit and prayed for its dismissal.
5. The appeal against the 2nd respondent was withdrawn.
6. When the matter came for directions on 28th March 2019, it was agreed by both counsel that the appeal would be canvassed by filing and exchanging submissions. The submissions were duly filed and exchanged.
7. This Court is the first appellate court. I am aware of my duty to evaluate the entire evidence on record bearing in mind that I had no advantage of seeing the witnesses testify and watch their demeanor. I will be guided by the pronouncements in the case of Selle vs. Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd. [1965] E.A. 123, where it was held that the first appellate court has to reconsider and evaluate the evidence that was tendered before the trial court, assess it and make its own conclusions in the matter.
8. The appellant and his co-defendant did not testify in the trial. Ordinarily, the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent would have gone unchallenged. However, there were two versions of how the accident occurred. According to P.C Njalo Matano (PW2), the police record indicated that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. The record shows that the deceased veered into the road after the driver of motor vehicle KAT 966Q had hooted. The deceased pedal cyclist was therefore blamed for the accident.
9. The second version was in the testimony of Emmanuel Makokha (PW3). He claimed to have witnessed the accident. He blamed the driver of motor vehicle KAT 966Q for the accident. He said the driver was on high speed and that he hit the pedal cyclist and the impact threw him in the middle of the road.
10. The appellant would have shed more light as to what transpired had he testified. His failure to testify left the court with the 1st respondent’s evidence. In instances where courts have difficulties in apportioning liability, parties have been held to be equally liable. the Court of Appeal decision in Hussein Omar Farah vs. Lento Agencies Civil Appeal 34 of 2005[2006] eKLRthat:
In our view, it is not reasonably possible to decide on the evidence of the witnesses who testified on both sides as to who is to blame for the accident. In this state of affairs the question arises whether both drivers should be held to blame. It has been held in our jurisdiction and also other jurisdictions that if there is no concrete evidence to determine who is to blame between two drivers, both should be held equally to blame.
In the instant case, the learned trial magistrate erred in apportioning liability at 70:30 in favour of the respondent. The liability in view of the evidence on record ought to have been 50:50 between the respondent and the appellant. I will therefore substitute the apportionment of the liability as stated herein above.There was no appeal against quantum of damages and the same will not be disturbed.
11. The appeal therefore succeed on liability. Each party will shoulder half costs both in the trial and this court.
DELIVEREDandSIGNEDatBUSIA this 20thdayof November, 2019
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE