https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8857

Coast Motorcycles v Musangi & another (Civil Appeal E263 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8857 (KLR) (Civ) (10 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8857 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E263 of 2025 AN Ongeri, J June 10, 2026 Between Coast Motorcycles Appellant and Monica Musangi 1st Respondent Oliver Odiambo 2nd Respondent (Being an Appeal from the Judgement of Hon. B.M. CHELOTI (PM) in Nairobi Mlimani CMCC No. E3032 of 2022 delivered on 29/05/2022) Judgment 1.The legal dispute before the trial court arose from a road traffic accident that occurred on or about March 3, 2022. 2.On that date, the 1st Respondent, Monica Musangi, alleged that she was lawfully and carefully crossing Garage Road when the motorcycle registration number KMFR 314P was ridden in a reckless and careless manner, resulting in it striking her. 3.Consequently, she sustained severe bodily injuries, loss, and damage. 4.The 1st Respondent further averred in her pleadings that at all material times concerning the suit, the Appellant, Coast Motorcycles was the registered owner of the subject motorcycle, while the 2nd Respondent (original 2nd Defendant, Oliver Odhiambo) was either the rider or the actual but unregistered owner. 5.In its judgment, the trial court reviewed the evidence presented, including the NTSA (National Transport and Safety Authority) search. 6.The court noted that as of May 5, 2022, the official NTSA records showed that motorcycle registration number KMFR 314P was registered to the Appellant. 7.The court acknowledged that the Appellant had produced a receipt dated July 12, 2021, which indicated that the said motorcycle had been sold to a third party, Karani Charo Jefa. 8.However, crucially, the trial court found that despite this receipt, the Appellant still retained ownership of the motorcycle according to the NTSA records at the time of the accident on March 3, 2022. 9.Based on these findings, the trial court held that the rider of the motorcycle owed a duty of care to all road users, including the 1st Respondent, to observe traffic rules and regulations. 10.The court was of the opinion that had the rider been operating within the stipulated speed limit, he would have been able to handle or control the motorcycle, and the accident would not have occurred. 11.Therefore, the trial court concluded that the Appellant (Coast Motorcycles) and the 2nd Respondent (Oliver Odhiambo) were severally and jointly liable for the accident that occasioned injuries to the 1st Respondent. 12.Finally, on the question of damages, the trial court assessed and awarded the 1st Respondent the following: general damages in the amount of Kshs. 350,000/-, special damages in the amount of Kshs. 4,550/-, the costs of the suit to be borne by the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, and interest on the general and special damages at the court's rate from the date of delivery of the judgment (May 29, 2024) until payment in full. 13.The Appellant has appealed against the said judgment on the following grounds;i.That the learned Magistrate erred in law by assessing 100% liability in favour of the 1st Respondent herein as against the Appellant and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein principally and or vicariously.ii.That the learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law and misdirected herself in law and in fact in failing to consider the evidence, testimonies and submissions adduced by the Appellant.iii.That the learned Magistrate erred in fact and law by misapprehending the evidence and misapplying, misunderstanding and overlooking the Appellant's pleadings, testimony and submissions in making its determination.iv.That the learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law in concluding that even though the Appellant had proven having sold the suit motorcycle to the third party prior to the suit accident, that the Appellant was still responsible for the causation of the accident either principally or vicariously.v.That the learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law in awarding Quantum, costs and interest to the 1st Respondent as against the Appellant herein. 14.The parties filed submissions as follows; 15.The appellant, Coast Motorcycles (originally the 1st defendant), is appealing against the entire judgment delivered on 29 May 2024 by the Principal Magistrate in Milimani CMCC No. E3032 of 2022. 16.The trial court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for a road traffic accident, awarded the plaintiff general damages of Kshs 350,000, special damages of Kshs 4,550, plus costs and interest. 17.The appellant argues that the learned magistrate erred in law and fact by assessing 100% liability against the appellant and the other respondents. 18.The appellant also contends that the magistrate failed to properly consider the evidence, testimonies, and submissions adduced by the appellant. 19.Although the appellant remained the registered owner of the motorcycle at the time of the accident, it had already sold and transferred possession of the motorcycle to the third respondent on 12 July 2021, while the accident occurred on 3 March 2022. 20.Relying on Section 8 of the Traffic Act, the appellant submits that registration is only prima facie evidence of ownership, and that actual, possessory, or beneficial ownership can be proved to the contrary, as held in Gichira Peter v Lucy Wambura Ngaku and Securicor Kenya Limited v Kyumba Holdings Limited. 21.The appellant further argues that vicarious liability cannot attach because there was no employer-employee or agency relationship between the appellant and the second respondent (the motorcycle rider) at the time of the accident. 22.The rider was not acting on the appellant’s request, express or implied, or on its instructions, which is required to establish vicarious liability under the test set by the Court of Appeal in Joseph Cosmas Khayigila v Gigi & Co. Ltd & Another. 23.Citing Sections 19 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, the appellant contends that property in the motorcycle passed to the third respondent when the contract of sale was made, as the motorcycle was in a deliverable state, and ownership does not depend on updating records with NTSA. 24.Since no liability can be established against the appellant, the issue of quantum as against the appellant does not arise. 25.The appellant prays that the appeal be allowed, the entire judgment against it be set aside, the lower court suit against it be dismissed, and the costs of both the appeal and the subordinate court be borne by the first respondent. 26.The respondent submitted that the trial magistrate correctly found the appellant 100% liable for a road traffic accident that occurred on 3rd March 2022 involving the appellant’s registered motorcycle, registration number KMFIR 314P, and the first respondent, who was a pedestrian. 27.The motorcycle was registered in the appellant’s name at the time of the accident, and a copy of records from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles constitutes prima facie evidence of ownership. 28.Although the appellant obtained leave to join a third party to shift liability, the appellant failed to serve the third-party notice as directed by the court, meaning the third party was never properly brought before the court, and the appellant remains solely responsible. 29.The respondent’s testimony regarding the circumstances of the accident was uncontroverted, as the appellant’s own witness admitted the accident occurred and confirmed the registration details. 30.The motorcycle was being ridden recklessly at excessive speed and failed to stop or slow down for pedestrians crossing at Garage Roundabout, which itself amounts to negligence. 31.In civil cases, the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities, and the respondent submits that this burden was fully discharged. 32.The respondent suffered serious bodily injuries including blunt chest injury, multiple abrasions on the forehead, hands, and lower limbs, swelling on both lower limbs, recurrent headaches, and residual scarring. 33.An appellate court should only interfere with an award of damages if it is inordinately high or low or if the trial court took into account irrelevant factors, and the trial magistrate did not err in any principle of law or fact. 34.The respondent prays that the appeal be dismissed and the trial court’s decision be upheld. 35.The issues for determination in this appeal are as follows;i.Whether the Appellant (Coast Motorcycles) remained the legal owner of the subject motorcycle at the time of the accident, thereby being vicariously liable for the torts of the rider.ii.Whether the trial court was wrong to award 100% liability against the Appellant. 36.The trial court erred in law by treating the NTSA registration as conclusive proof of ownership, contrary to Section 8 of the Traffic Act which permits rebuttal of the presumption of ownership. 37.. The Appellant produced an uncontroverted sale receipt dated 12th July 2021, proving that actual and beneficial ownership of the motorcycle had passed to a third party over eight months before the accident of 3rd March 2022. 38.Further, the trial court misapplied the doctrine of vicarious liability because there was no evidence of an employer-employee or agency relationship between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent (rider). 39.The 2nd Respondent was not acting on the Appellant’s request or instructions. 40.The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court in CMCC No. E3032 of 2022 is set aside as against the Appellant, Coast Motorcycles, and the suit against the Appellant is dismissed. 41.Regarding costs, each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal. 42.Orders to issue accordingly. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.ASENATH ONGERIJUDGEIn the presence of:Miss Abwao for the AppellantCrispin – Court Assistant.