[1998] KEHC 139 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding negligence on the part of the defendants. There was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the defendants to the deceased's death, nor was there any documentary evidence of the deceased's earnings or special damages. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 139 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nyokabi Kinyanjui; Defendant: Paul Kinyanjui Muthumbi; Defendant: Ernest Njunge Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2370 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Fatal Accidents, 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
Nyokabi Kinyanjui
Plaintiff
Paul Kinyanjui Muthumbi
Defendant
Ernest Njunge Njoroge
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants were negligent and liable for the deceased's death.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff proved her claim for damages under the Law Reform Act and Fatal Accidents Act.
- 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim for loss of earnings and special damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding negligence on the part of the defendants. There was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the defendants to the deceased's death, nor was there any documentary evidence of the deceased's earnings or special damages. The court emphasized that judicial notice could not substitute for proof, and that damages must be strictly proved. In the absence of evidence, the suit could not succeed and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed with costs
Orders
- The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
- No award is made for damages due to lack of proof.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 2370 OF 1995
NYOKABI KINYANJUI .................................................. PLAINTIFF VERSUS PAUL KINYANJUI MUTHUMBI ...................... 1ST DEFENDANT ERNEST NJUNGE NJOROGE ........................... 2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Only the Plaintiff, gave evidence in this running down case.
She is the mother of the deceased. Her son was employed by the 1st defendant who owned a motor vehicle. The 2nd defendant was a driver of the said vehicle.
The Plaintiff told the court how the deceased fell from a vehicle and died. She later informed the court that she did not witness this nor was she present when the accident occurred.
She had just been told of what occurred. She also stated from the witness box that her son earned Kshs.4,800/-. She had no documentary proof for this.
She nonetheless produced Letters of Administration, police abstract and a P3 form.
The advocate in her opening address stated that the plaintiff will rely on the Law Reform and the Fatal accident Act. In her further submission she said that this court make award for damages for breach of Statutory duties and for loss of earnings.
No evidence as to negligence on the part of the two defendant has been led. The Plaintiff only stated what she knew. The deceased’s death. It would have been of great assistant if there was an eye wittiness to the incident or proof under the Evidence Act by production of proceeding of the lower court case.
Further, the Plaintiff concedes that she had no documentary evidence of the salary of the deceased. All she stated is the defendant was paying her son Kshs.4,800/- per month.
Advocate requested that I take Judicial notice of this.
As there is extremely no proof of evidence in this case, the suit stands dismissed with costs Under the law, I require to compute damages if in event there was proof. The advocate recommended 4,800/- x 20 x 12 = 1,052,000 for loss of further earning. There would have been no guarantee of continued employment. I would have said Kshs.400,000/- to have been reasonable in General Damages.
Workman compensation though pleaded was not proved nor prayed for. No evidence was led to Special Damages. I make no award due to lack of proof/evidence.
The suit is hereby dismissed with costs.
Dated this 30th day of October, 1998.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE