[2015] KEHC 5019 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate's apportionment of 25% contributory negligence to the appellant was not supported by any evidence. The only evidence before the trial court was from the plaintiff and a doctor, and there was no evidence or cross-examination regarding the use of a seat belt or any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5019 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Elisha Adul Hindia; Respondent: Lucas Ngode Mugunda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 145 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed. Finding of contributory negligence set aside. Respondent held wholly liable.
- Judges
- EM Muchoki
- Legal Topics
- Road Traffic Accidents, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Personal Injury 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
Elisha Adul Hindia
Appellant
Lucas Ngode Mugunda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in apportioning 25% contributory negligence to the appellant in the absence of supporting evidence.
- 2 Whether the respondent was wholly liable for the accident involving motor vehicle KAS 065 M.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate's apportionment of 25% contributory negligence to the appellant was not supported by any evidence. The only evidence before the trial court was from the plaintiff and a doctor, and there was no evidence or cross-examination regarding the use of a seat belt or any contributory act by the appellant. The respondent's denial of negligence and the occurrence of the accident was not substantiated, and the appellant's evidence remained uncontroverted. Consequently, the High Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and held the respondent wholly liable for the accident, awarding damages and costs to the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed. Finding of contributory negligence set aside. Respondent held wholly liable.
Orders
- Judgment for the appellant against the defendant.
- Damages for pain and suffering awarded at KES 100,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
HCCA NO. 145 OF 2006
ELISHA ADUL HINDIA …...................................................................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
LUCAS NGODE MUGUNDA …......................................................... RESPONDENT
( Being an appeal from the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Mikoyan, Resident Magistrate in the original Bondo SRMC, Civil Case No. 31 of 2005)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the decision of the trial magistrate to apportion 25% contributory negligence against the appellant in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred along the Ndori Luanda Kotieno road on 28th May, 2005. It is contended that the court ought to have found the Respondent wholly to blame for the self involving accident-involving his motor vehicle reg. No. KAS 065 M in which the plaintiff was a passenger.
Briefly, the facts of this case were that on 28th May, 2005 the plaintiff boarded the bus Reg No. KAS 065M belonging to the defendant to go to Akala market. However, at a place called Ronalo the driver attempted to overtake a Nissan at a high speed and overturned. The plaintiff sustained injuries for which he was treated at Akala Hospital. In a judgment delivered on 19th November, 2006 the trial magistrate found it a fact that the plaintiff was a fare paying passenger in the motor vehicle and that the accident was self involving. He also found that he sustained injuries. On liability he stated, “Investigating officer assessment liability. I have considered that plaintiff`s contribution is entered at 25% and the defendant held liable for the accident at 75%”. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this finding is not supported by any evidence at all and has urged this Court to set it aside. He relied on 2 Court of Appeal decisions:-
Isabella Wanjiru Karanja V. Washington Malele ( 1982-88) 1 KAR 185
Kiema Muthuku V. Kenya Cargo Handling services Limited (1991) 2( KAR 258.
Counsel for the Respondent did not file his submissions despite being notified to do so. Nevertheless, I have reconsidered, and evaluated the evidence adduced in the lower court bearing in mind that I ought not to interfere with the trial magistrate`s finding of fact or discretion unless based on the wrong principle or on no evidence at all.
In the plaint, the accident is attributed wholly to the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle Reg. NO. KAS 065 M while in the statement of defence negligence is denied and indeed the occurance of the accident is also denied. At paragraph 8 however it is averred that the plaintiff contributed to the accident for failing to wear an available seat belt. At the hearing only the plaintiff and a doctor gave evidence and although the defendant`s advocate cross-examined him he was not questioned on the use of the seat belt and no evidence was adduced that he did not wear a seat belt. His evidence remained uncontroverted and I agree with his advocate that the trial magistrate finding on liability was not based on any evidence. The appeal is therefore allowed, the finding/ apportionment of contributory negligence against the plaintiff is set aside and substituted with a finding that the Defendant is wholly liable for the accident.
Accordingly, there shall be judgment for the appellant against the defendant as follows:
Damages for pain and suffering ksh. 100,000/-
Special damages ksh. 1,700/-
Interests at court rates
Costs of the suit in the lower court and in this court.
E.N. MAINA
JUDGE
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 9th day of April, 2015.
In the presence of:_
Mr. Olel for the Appellant
No appearance for the Respondent
Court Assistant- Moses Okumu