[2012] KEHC 5504 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5504 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st Defendant was not served with civil process and could not be held liable without being heard, in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Regarding the 2nd Defendant, the court held that vicarious liability does not arise because the 1st Defendant's act of assault was not connected to his employment duties as a watchman but was a personal act of self-defence following provocation by the Plaintiff. The evidence, particularly from DW2, established that the Plaintiff initiated the altercation and the 1st Defendant's response was not within the scope of his employment. Therefore, neither the 1st nor the 2nd Defendant was liable for the Plaintiff's injuries,...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5504 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joel Mutemi Kivangu; Defendant: Saiko Lekeresie; Defendant: George Kinuthia Njuguna
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 October 2012
Case Number
Civil Suit 256 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Assault, Self Defence, Employer Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Law Vicarious Liability Assault Self Defence Employer Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel Mutemi Kivangu

Plaintiff

Saiko Lekeresie

Defendant

George Kinuthia Njuguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant is liable for assaulting the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for injuries sustained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st Defendant was not served with civil process and could not be held liable without being heard, in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Regarding the 2nd Defendant, the court held that vicarious liability does not arise because the 1st Defendant's act of assault was not connected to his employment duties as a watchman but was a personal act of self-defence following provocation by the Plaintiff. The evidence, particularly from DW2, established that the Plaintiff initiated the altercation and the 1st Defendant's response was not within the scope of his employment. Therefore, neither the 1st nor the 2nd Defendant was liable for the Plaintiff's injuries,...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear his own costs.