[2003] KEHC 369 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 369 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to strictly prove the claim for loss of use of the motor vehicle. The evidence presented by the respondent, particularly through PW3, was found to be false regarding the ownership of the hired vehicle, as official records showed the vehicle belonged to a third party and not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 369 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Ritharia Ngatia & Another; Appellant: CMC Aviation Ltd & Another
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 370 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed_in_part
Legal Topics
Special Damages, Loss of Use, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Tort Law Civil Procedure Special Damages Loss of Use Motor Vehicle Accidents Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Ritharia Ngatia & Another

Respondent

CMC Aviation Ltd & Another

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved the claim for loss of use of the motor vehicle as special damages.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in awarding damages for loss of use without sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to strictly prove the claim for loss of use of the motor vehicle. The evidence presented by the respondent, particularly through PW3, was found to be false regarding the ownership of the hired vehicle, as official records showed the vehicle belonged to a third party and not to Arts and Safaris. There was no evidence of a contract between Arts and Safaris and the vehicle owner, nor proof that the respondent actually hired the vehicle from Arts and Safaris. The magistrate erred in awarding damages for loss of use without sufficient proof. Consequently, the award for loss of use was set aside and the appeal allowed to that extent.

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed_in_part

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed to the extent that the award of damages for loss of use in the sum of Kshs.139,500/= is set aside.
  • The appellant is awarded half the costs of this appeal.