[2015] KEHC 5693 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5693 (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 that of the appellant, who was a fare-paying passenger and whose testimony regarding the accident and his conduct was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5693 (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. Apportionment 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 Assessment
Source Language
en
Tort Law Road Traffic Accidents Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Personal Injury Damages Assessment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elisha Adul Hindia

Appellant

Lucas Ngode Mugunda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in apportioning 25% contributory negligence to the appellant without evidentiary basis.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was wholly liable for the accident involving motor vehicle KAS 065M.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to full damages for injuries sustained.

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 that of the appellant, who was a fare-paying passenger and whose testimony regarding the accident and his conduct was uncontroverted. The respondent neither cross-examined the appellant on the alleged failure to wear a seat belt nor adduced any evidence to support contributory negligence. The court held that liability must be based on evidence, and in the absence of any, the finding of contributory negligence was erroneous. The court therefore set aside the apportionment and found the respondent...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Apportionment of contributory negligence set aside. Respondent held wholly liable.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant against the defendant for damages for pain and suffering of KES 100,000.
  • Special damages of KES 1,700 awarded to the appellant.