Pinnacle Intergrated Technologies Ltd & another v Nyamasyo (Suing for and on Behalf of the Estate of Daniel Musomba Mutunga - Deceased) & 4 others (Civil Appeal E289 & E290 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 9516 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)

Pinnacle Intergrated Technologies Ltd & another v Nyamasyo (Suing for and on Behalf of the Estate of Daniel Musomba Mutunga - Deceased) & 4 others (Civil Appeal E289 & E290 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 9516 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9516 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Civil Appeal E289 & E290 of 2024 (Consolidated) EN Maina, J June 25, 2026 Being an appeal against the judgment of Hon. K.D. Ole Keiwua (CM) of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kangundo in CMCC No.E134 of 2015 delivered on 30th September 2024. Between Pinnacle Intergrated Technologies Limited Appellant and Valentine Ndunge Nyamasyo (Suing for and on Behalf of the Estate of Daniel Musomba Mutunga - Deceased) 1st Respondent Monica Nyambura Mwangi 2nd Respondent Sanlam General Insurance Ltd 3rd Respondent As consolidated with Civil Appeal E290 of 2024 Between Sanlam General Insurance Ltd Appellant and Valentine Ndunge Nyamasyo (Suing for and on Behalf of the Estate of Daniel Musomba Mutunga - Deceased) 1st Respondent Monica Nyambura Mwangi 2nd Respondent Pinnacle Intergrated Technologies Limited 3rd Respondent Judgment 1.This appeal arises from the judgment of the lower court in a claim for compensation for personal injuries brought by the 1st Respondent against the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant in Appeal No. E289 OF 2024 (Pinnacle Integrated Technologies limited). The Appellant in appeal No. E290 of 2024 (Sanlam General Insurance limited) was enjoined to the proceedings as a Third Party by Pinnacle Integrated Technologies limited (Appellant in Appeal No. E289), who was the 2nd Defendant in the suit, on the ground that as at the time of the accident, it had acquired the motor vehicle as a salvage following an accident which occurred in the year 2011. 2.The Third Party/Appellant (Sanlam General Insurance limited) entered appearance and filed a defence and averred it was wrongly enjoined as it had sold the motor vehicle to a third party who in turn sold it to the 2nd Respondent in whose sole custody, control and proprietorship the vehicle was at the time of the accident. 3.However, upon hearing the case, the learned magistrate found that both Appellants and the 2nd Respondent herein were jointly and severally liable for the accident and entered judgment against them for the sum of Kshs.1,242,755/-, interest and costs. The court’s finding was that the Appellants had not dislodged the 1st Respondent’s evidence that they were the registered owners of the motor vehicle. 4.Being aggrieved the Pinnacle Integrated company limited (Appellant in HCCA E289 of 2024) preferred an appeal on the following grounds that:“(1)(1) The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding the appellant liable for the accident involving motor vehicle KAM 346R which led to the death of the 1st respondent’s kin.(2)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding that the appellant was a registered and/or beneficial owner of the motor vehicle KAM 346R at the time of the subject accident.(3)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the evidence on record showing that the 3rd respondent sold the subject motor vehicle to the 2nd respondent at the time of the accident.(4)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider that at the time of the accident, the subject vehicle was insured by Africa Merchant Assurance Company Limited (AMACO) under the instructions of the 2nd respondent.(5)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to find that the police abstract produced in court listed the 2nd respondent as the owner of the subject vehicle, and which evidence was not controverted.(6)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider that the appellant had sought to be indemnified by the 3rd respondent in the event of any liability.(7)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider the evidenced produced and the respective submissions filed by the parties.” 5.The appeal by Sanlam General Insurance limited (Appellant in HCCA E290 of 2024) is premised on the following grounds:“(1)That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the 1st and 2nd respondents did not discharge their evidential burden of proof of their allegations as is required under Section 107 of the Evidence Act thus arriving at an erroneous finding that the appellant was the beneficial and registered owner of motor vehicle registration number KAM 346R.(2)That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the 1st respondent did not discharge her evidential burden of proof of her allegation as is required under Section 107 of the Evidence Act thus arriving at an erroneous finding that the appellant jointly with the 2nd and 3rd respondents were vicariously liable for the accident.(3)That the learned magistrate erred in misdirecting himself in law and in fact and misapplied the evidence of parties on the ownership of motor vehicle registration number KAM 346R thus failing to find that the appellant was neither the beneficial nor registered owner of the said vehicle and as such could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the tortfeasor despite overwhelming evidence in support of the same.(4)The learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by completely disregarding and/or completely failing to consider the appellant’s oral and documentary evidence and submissions on the issue of ownership of motor vehicle registration number KAM 346R hence coming to the erroneous finding on liability of 100% as against the appellant and 2nd and 3rd respondents and in effect breaching the appellant’s constitutional rights of access to justice and fair hearing.(5)That the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider all the averments made in the appellant’s pleadings in response to the plaint and third-party notice, thereby reaching wrong conclusions of law and fact.(6)That the learned magistrate failed to adequately evaluate the evidence and exhibits on record and thereby arrived at an unsustainable finding on liability.” 6.In the court below the Plaintiff/1st Respondent herein relied on a copy of records which indicated that Pinnacle Integrated Technologies Ltd (Appellant in HCCA E289 of 2024) was the registered owner of the motor vehicle. However, Pinnacle Integrated (the Appellant in HCCA E289 of 2024), adduced evidence that sometimes in the year 2011, the motor vehicle had been involved in an accident which resulted in its being written off; that it sold the salvage to Sanlam (Appellant in HCCA E290 of 2024), then known as Gateway Insurance, which was its insurer, and that Sanlam had in turn sold the vehicle to another party. 7.The issues for determination are therefore-a.Whether the Appellants discharged the evidential burden that they were neither the registered owners nor beneficial or possessory owners of the accident motor vehicle.b.Whether Pinnacle Integrated Technologies Limited should be indemnified by Sanlam General Insurance Limited.c.Whether the appellants were wrongly sued. Analysis and determination 8.As the first appellate court, I have considered and evaluated the evidence in the court below so as to arrive at my own independent conclusion albeit taking into account that I neither saw nor heard the witnesses – see the case of Selle V Associated Motor Boat Company Limited [1968] EA 123. I have also considered the grounds of appeal in both appeals, the rival submissions and the law. It is instructive to note that the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not file any submissions. 9.It is trite that a copy of Records such as was tendered by the 1st respondent at the hearing in the court below, is but prima facie evidence of ownership – see Section 8 of the Traffic act which states:-“[Sec. 8] Owner of vehicle“The person in whose name a vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle.” 10.It is also trite that by virtue of the wording of Section 8 above, the presumption of ownership can be dislodged. There is a long line of cases to that effect both in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. In the case of Muhambi Koja v Said Mbwana Abdi [2015] KECA 635 (KLR) the Court of Appeal stated:“These decisions confirm that, by dint of Section 8 of the Traffic Act the registration book or the Registrar’s extract of the record are only prima facie evidence of title to a vehicle and the person in whose name it is registered is presumed to be the owner thereof unless the contrary is proved. The burden is discharged if, on a balance of probabilities it is shown that as a matter of fact the vehicle had been transferred but not yet registered to a de facto owner, a beneficial owner or a possessory owner. Such an owner, though not registered, for practical purposes may be more relevant than that in whose name the vehicle is registered as was found in the Securicor Kenya case (Supra).” 11.Similarly, in the case of Bundi & Another v Primarosa Flowers limited [2018] KEHC 7792 (KLR) the court held:[Para. 21] Upon our own consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant was able to show that there was a direct link between the respondent and the motor vehicle that was involved in the accident which led to the injuries to the respondent’s employees including those to the appellant. The respondent availed the said motor vehicle to be used by its employees and the appellant could not possess evidence to show the relationship the respondent and the company called Zamora International in whose name the motor vehicle was registered. The appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent had beneficial ownership of the motor vehicle and that is why it availed the said motor vehicle to be used to ferry its employees. The learned Magistrate’s findings were sound and should have been upheld by the learned Judge on first appeal. The learned Judge fell into error in placing a technical interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Traffic Act. It was proved to the required standard that the motor vehicle which was registered in the name of the company Zamora International Limited was used by and to the benefit of the respondent. We are entitled to set aside the findings of the learned Judge which we hereby do.” 12.In this case the Appellants adduced evidence that the subject vehicle had in the year 2011 been involved in another accident. The vehicle was written off and Sanlam (then Gateway Insurance) bought the salvage from Pinnacle Integrated Co. Limited then its insured. Documents evidencing the sale transaction were produced in evidence in the court below. Also adduced were documents which indicate that Sanlam then sold the motor vehicle to another entity which in turn sold it to the 2nd Respondent herein, under whose control and custody it was when the accident subject of these appeals, occurred. I am therefore satisfied that there is evidence on a balance of probabilities that the 2nd Respondent was the owner of the vehicle at all material times, even though not registered. Had the trial magistrate scrutinized the documents, he would have certainly arrived at a different conclusion that he did, as indeed the 2nd Respondent did not deny that she was the owner of the motor vehicle at the time in issue. There is no evidence that the 2nd Respondent was driving the vehicle on behalf of the Appellants and hence finding them jointly liable with her for the accident was an error in principle. This, as was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ignatius Makau Mutisya v Reuben Musyoki Muli [2015] KECA 612 (KLR) where it was stated:“Our finding is that the special, insurable and actual owner of the lorry in question as at the time the accident happened was the respondent. The Appellant successfully rebutted the prima facie evidence on ownership as stipulated under section 8 of the Traffic Act. We are also satisfied that the appellant discharged the burden of proof as required in law. Our independent conclusion is that the learned judge erred in finding that the appellant was liable for the accident in question.” 13.The upshot is that the consolidated appeals have merit. The judgment of the court below finding them liable for the accident jointly with the 2nd Respondent is set aside leaving judgment to be against the 2nd respondent wholly. 14.Having found both appeals successful, I shall make no order for indemnity of either Appellant. The costs of the appeal shall however, be borne by Monica Nyambura Mwangi (2nd respondent in both appeals).Orders accordingly. JUDGMENT SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY BY WAY OF MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.E. N. MAINAJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms Wairimu for Kabugu for the Appellant in E289 & 3rd Respondent in E290Mr. Waweru for Appellant in E290 & 3rd respondent in E289Catherine - Court Assistant/Interpreter