https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9334
The evidence did not clearly establish which driver was solely to blame for the collision at the T-junction, and the police abstract was not enough to fix liability in the absence of independent eyewitness testimony. The court therefore apportioned liability equally at 50:50 and upheld the undisputed award for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9334 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Shameer Patel; Respondent: Peris Wanjiku Thamani
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E362 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; liability apportioned 50:50; trial award on material damage upheld.
- Judges
- ["LP Kassan"]
- Legal Topics
- Liability Apportionment, Right Turn Collision, Overtaking at a T Junction, Proof of Negligence, Material Damage
- 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
Shameer Patel
Appellant
Peris Wanjiku Thamani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Who was liable for the road traffic accident at a T-junction
- 2 Whether the police abstract conclusively established liability
- 3 What apportionment of liability, if any, was appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence did not clearly establish which driver was solely to blame for the collision at the T-junction, and the police abstract was not enough to fix liability in the absence of independent eyewitness testimony. The court therefore apportioned liability equally at 50:50 and upheld the undisputed award for material damage.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; liability apportioned 50:50; trial award on material damage upheld.
Orders
- Liability apportioned equally at 50:50.
- Award of material damage upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Patel v Thamani (Civil Appeal E362 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9334 (KLR) (Civ) (1 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9334 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E362 of 2025 LP Kassan, J July 1, 2026 Between Shameer Patel Appellant and Peris Wanjiku Thamani Respondent Ruling 1.The nature of this appeal is for material damage. The Respondent was driving along the road when it turned right to join a road on a T junction when it was hit by the Appellant car which was overtaking it. The Appellant’s motor vehicle was hit on the front right side signaling that it had commenced to turn right. The Appellant contends that the Respondent’s vehicle turned right when he had made a lawful overtaking thus leading to the accident. 2.The duty of care is usually higher for any driver making or intending to make a right turn/ U turn. That driver must ensure that the road is clear before turning. The Appellant testified that it had indicated its intention to turn right although he did not state so in his witness statement. 3.The other scenario that may occur is when the driver overtaking fails to notice that the car in front is making a right turn. The accident occurred at a T junction as per the sketch plan produced. Both parties stuck on their different explanations on how the accident occurred. The police abstract blamed the Appellant. 4.The above two possibilities make it difficult for this Court to really tell what happened. The fact that the police abstract blamed the Appellant does not necessarily mean that the Appellant is liable because there was no independent eye witness. This does not reduce the duty of care that is owed by the Appellant under the circumstances because he ought to have made sure that the right side is clear before turning. The fact that a driver has put an indicator to show that it wants to turn right or left does not in any way give it a right to that route. On the other hand, the respondent ought to have slowed down /avoid overtaking when approaching a T junction. 5.The onset of the above is that it is not clear who is to blame and this being the case I shall apportion liability at 50:50. The award of material damage is not challenged and so it is upheld. The respondent did not file a counter claim for my consideration since both of them are liable. Each party shall bear be own costs of appeal and lower Court. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY 2026.HON L P KASSANJUDGEIn the presence of;No appearance for AppellantChamwada for RespondentLeonard – Court Assistant