[2000] KEHC 334 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established that the accident occurred due to the defendant's negligence in failing to provide adequate warning or lighting at the road construction site. The defendant, having called no evidence and merely denying knowledge of the incident, failed to discharge the burden of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 334 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samuel Ngutho Ngaruiya; Defendant: Crescent Construction Co. Ltd.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 212 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Road Construction Liability, Damages Assessment
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Samuel Ngutho Ngaruiya
Plaintiff
Crescent Construction Co. Ltd.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate warning or lighting at the construction site, resulting in the plaintiff's accident.
- 2 Whether the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident.
- 3 What quantum of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established that the accident occurred due to the defendant's negligence in failing to provide adequate warning or lighting at the road construction site. The defendant, having called no evidence and merely denying knowledge of the incident, failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating absence of negligence. The court relied on the principle that once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of negligence, the defendant must provide an explanation. As the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of the specific amounts claimed for damages, the court awarded nominal damages. The defendant was held 100% liable for the accident.
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant is held 100% liable for the accident.
- The plaintiff is awarded nominal damages of Ksh.50,000/-.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 212 OF 1990
SAMUEL NGUTHO NGARUIYA ................................. P LAINTIFF
VERSUS
CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ..................... DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
It is not disputed in this case that the defendants were constructing a road along the Gatanga-Ndakaini road. It is further not disputed that though the construction was going on and the road closed to the public who lived along the road would infact still use the said road.
It is not disputed that the plaintiff Samuel N. Ngaruiya was a Resident who used one of the said roads.
It is further not disputed that on the night of 3. 3.87 at 7. 45 p.m., the plaintiff was travelling along the said road when without warning and or any light to indicate there was a trench that the said vehicle fell into the trench.
The members of the public helped him pull the vehicle out. He did not wish to leave the vehicle in the trench as he feared of some people coming to vandalise the vehicle was high.
He then towed the vehicle home. He made contracts with defendants M/s Crescent Construction Company about the incident. They retaliated by blocking his access road. As such he was unable to have his vehicle repaired. After writing a letter to the defendants through his then advocate, the defendants made the access road available.
He was then reassured that the matters would be looked into. For several months he wrote letters to the Resident Engineer of the Gatanga Ndakaini Project (see his letter of 8. 1.88). No action was taken save that he was referred to the Insurance Company and the Engineer or defendant Company.
On 17. 1.90 the plaintiff filed suit. This case has been pending in these court halls for the last decade.
In the meantime the defendants filed the defence denying any knowledge of the incident.
An amended Plaint was further asked as an application and dated the 13. 8.97 after leave to amend the same was granted by consent by Hon. Justice Aluoch on 13. 10. 98.
I do not see anywhere that an amended plaint had thereafter been filed. It means I require to rely on the first Plaint. This Plaint claimed repair costs of vehicle at Ksh.18,350/-. Towing charges of Ksh.2,200/- Loss of user Ksh.191,100/-. He broke his spectacles at Ksh750/-.
The plaintiff on changing the advocates finally appeared on his own.
The evidence he gave to court was as narrated above. That he was travelling along the said road when it fell into the trench. He held the defendants accountable for the said accident. This was due to their negligence of not lighting up the way on the said road or give adequate warning. It was dark when the accident occurred.
The advocate for the defendant called no evidence. He prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of proof.
In the case of:-
J.F.A Ogol vs Wilson Mumbu Murithi
unreported CA 125/84 at Kisumu
Hancox, Nyarangi JJA & Gicheru Ag. JA.
The Court of Appeal held that where in a superior court the plaintiff produces his evidence and the defendant does not produce his evidence he cannot rely on “a no case to answer”. The defendant must call his evidence namely:
“Once it was proved that the appellant was hit while on the pedestrian crossing, an accident blameable on the respondent was disclosed. The burden of proof was that on the respondent to explain and demonstrate that the accident was not due to any fault of his. See Cele vs. Trafford (1918)2QB 523.
That is not to say that the respondent had to prove how and why the accident happened. It would suffice if he was able to show that he personally was NOT negligent even if the accident remained in explicable.”
I find in this case that the plaintiff stated his case and was able to prove that an accident occurred. He was enticed from 1987 to 1990 by the defendant that this matter was going to be settled out was not. I hereby hold the defendants liable at 100%.
As to quantum the plaintiff attempted to show that he required compensation for his broken spectacles glasses (He did not bring this to court).
That he wanted the compensation or the repair of his vehicle and loss of user whilst the said vehicle was under repair.
I would hold that all the plaintiff is entitled to norminal damages. (See Mcgregor on damages 10th Edition.) This is where the plaintiff has proved his case but not the award although he is entitled to it.
I hereby award him a norminal damage of Ksh.50,000/-.
I award interest from the date of this judgement.
I award costs to the plaintiff.
Dated this 2nd day of March 2000 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE