[2003] KEHC 847 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd Appellant, as employer and owner of the tractor, was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the 1st Appellant, who was acting within the scope of his employment and with the employer's consent. The 1st Appellant's reckless conduct in driving the tractor without a licence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 847 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: John Bill Kamau; Appellant: Eastern Rift Saw Mills Ltd; Respondent: Stephen Mwaura Mbugua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 93 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vicarious Liability, Employer Liability, Workplace Injury, Negligence, 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
John Bill Kamau
Appellant
Eastern Rift Saw Mills Ltd
Appellant
Stephen Mwaura Mbugua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd Appellant is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the 1st Appellant committed in the course of employment.
- 2 Whether the 1st Appellant was negligent in causing injury to the Respondent.
- 3 Whether the award of damages by the lower court was proper and based on correct legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd Appellant, as employer and owner of the tractor, was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the 1st Appellant, who was acting within the scope of his employment and with the employer's consent. The 1st Appellant's reckless conduct in driving the tractor without a licence constituted negligence. The Respondent did not contribute to his own injury, and there was no evidence that the trial magistrate applied the wrong principles in assessing damages. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's award of damages was upheld as fair and proper.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
- The Respondent is awarded costs of the lower court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 93 OF 1996
JOHN BILL KAMAU ………………………………………..1ST APPELLANT
EASTERN RIFT SAW MILLS LTD ………………………...2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN MWAURA MBUGUA …………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from the Judgment of the lower court by which the Respondent was awarded general damages of Kshs. 120,000/= and special damages of Kshs. 1,000/=. The matters leading to the appeal are as follows:
The Respondent who was an employee of the 2nd Appellant was working with his colleagues when he was hit by a tree stump which was being pulled by a tractor which was being driven by the 1st Appellant. The Respondent claimed in his Plaint that the 2nd Defendant was the registered owner of the offending tractor.
The Appellants were aggrieved by the decision of the lower court and have appealed to this court seeking to have the same set aside or for a review or revision of the award of damages by the said court. The appeal is based on 12 grounds which in my view are frivolous.
From the record of the lower court, it is obvious that the 2nd Appellant was the owner of the offending tractor. It was the employer of the Respondent and the 1st Appellant and had sent them to work at the stated location. The 1st Appellant who occasioned the loss leading to the claim in the lower court stated on cross examination that he was a supervisor and a driver of the Respondent. He also said that he drove the 2nd Defendant’s tractors with its consent. It is therefore obvious that by virtue of his employment he had actual or ostensible authority to drive the 2nd Appellant’s tractors. Being such an employee, the 2nd Appellant is vicariously liable for his negligent acts.
As was pointed out inMwona Ndoo t/a Ngomeni Bus Service v. Kakuzi Ltd. (1982-88) 1KAR 523, it is the responsibility of an employer to prove that his servant was acting outside his authority to absolve the employer from being liable for the negligent acts of the employee committed by the employee in the course of his employment. Here, the 1st Appellant was an employee of the 2nd Appellant. The 1st Appellant admitted that he drove – atleast sometimes, the 2nd Appellant’s tractors with the 2nd Appellant’s consent. That is, in my view, sufficient to constitute the 2nd Appellant vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the 1st Appellant.
I did not appear to understand Mr. Mahida’s argument on foreseability. Here was the 2nd Appellant’s supervisor who knew that he was not licenced to drive tractors but went ahead to do so. He acted recklessly by all standards and that is sufficient to constitute negligence. Whether he saw the stump or not is neither here nor there. There can also not be a question for contribution in this case. The Respondent did not do anything to lead to his injury and only the Appellants are liable for his injuries.
As to damages, I was not shown that the Learned Trial Magistrate applied wrong principles in reaching the decision that she did. I have looked at the nature of injuries sustained by the Respondent and the authorities supplied to the lower court and I am satisfied that the decision of the lower court on that question was fair and proper in the circumstances of this case.
I, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. The Respondent will also have the costs of the lower court.
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 7th day of May, 2003.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE