[1996] KECA 166 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence on record clearly established negligence on the part of the defendant's driver, and there was no legal basis for the High Court to interfere with the Principal Magistrate's findings. The appellate court held that the special damages for repairs and loss of user were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] KECA 166 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Risper Achieng Adede; Respondent: Hayer Bishan Singh & Sons
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 167 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- AR Lorot, GS Pall
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Road Traffic Accidents, Special Damages, Loss of User, Appellate Review, Quantum of Damages
- 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
Risper Achieng Adede
Appellant
Hayer Bishan Singh & Sons
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the road accident involving the plaintiff's vehicle.
- 2 Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Principal Magistrate's finding on liability and quantum.
- 3 Whether special damages for repairs and loss of user were proved by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence on record clearly established negligence on the part of the defendant's driver, and there was no legal basis for the High Court to interfere with the Principal Magistrate's findings. The appellate court held that the special damages for repairs and loss of user were credibly proved and not challenged or cross-appealed. The judgment of the Principal Magistrate was well-founded and warranted restoration. The High Court erred both on liability and quantum, and its judgment was set aside in favor of reinstating the original award to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment of the Superior Court is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: OMOLO, LAKHA & PALL, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 1996
BETWEEN
RISPER ACHIENG ADEDE ................................. APPELLANT
AND
HAYER BISHAN SINGH & SONS ................................ RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Justice Kuloba) dated 6th December, 1995 in H.C.C. A. NO. 53 OF 1994)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the superior court (Kuloba, J.) dated December 6, 1995 on appeal whereby he reversed the decision of the Principal Magistrate (Kanyangi, P.M.) and set the same aside.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages arising from a road accident on or about February 17, 1993. Her motor vehicle KAA 922R was being driven along Jomo Kenyatta Highway on its correct side when the defendant's motor vehicle entered the main road from the junction from the left without warning and without stopping at the junction. The Principal Magistrate found for the plaintiff and entered judgment for her for Shs.210,581/= being the cost of the repairs and Shs.60,000/= for loss of user with costs and interest.
On appeal to the superior court by the defendant, the learned judge held that the defendant's version of what happened at the accident was correct and that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed. On quantum, he held that special damages were not proven and reversed the decision of the Principal Magistrate.
It is against that judgment of the superior court that the plaintiff now appeals to this court. We have no hesitation in finding, as we do, that the facts of the case clearly established negligence on the part of the defendant's driver and there was no basis, in law, for the learned judge on first appeal to have interfered. In doing so, with respect, he erred. He also erred on the issue of the quantum. We are satisfied that there was credible evidence both as to the cost of repairs and the loss of user which had not been challenged and not cross-appealed. We find that the judgment of the principal magistrate was well founded in all respects and did not warrant any interference. We may add that once again we found the judgment of the superior court, with respect, made strange reading.
Accordingly and, for the reasons above stated, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Superior Court is set aside and that of the Principal Magistrate is restored. The defendant shall also pay to the appellant the costs of this appeal and those of the Superior Court.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 20th day of November, 1996.
R.S.C. OMOLO
.................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.A. LAKHA .
...............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
G.S. PALL
................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
DEPUTY REGISTRAR