[2019] KEELRC 540 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 540 (KLR)

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to apportion liability among all defendants, particularly the 1st and 3rd respondents, despite evidence of their involvement and contractual relationships at the accident site. The court held that interlocutory judgment against the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 540 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Simon Unda Katana; Respondent: Deeman Construction Co Ltd; Respondent: Freight Forwarders NBI Ltd & DTK; Respondent: Kitui Flour Mills Limited; Respondent: Coast Silos (K) Limited; Respondent: Khalid Omar Swaleh T/A Jomvu Scrape Metal
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 October 2019
Case Number
Cause 4 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied to hold 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents jointly and severally liable; damages award upheld.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Vicarious Liability, Apportionment of Liability, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
english
Employment and Labour Tort Law Workplace Injury Vicarious Liability Apportionment of Liability Quantum of Damages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Unda Katana

Appellant

Deeman Construction Co Ltd

Respondent

Freight Forwarders NBI Ltd & DTK

Respondent

Kitui Flour Mills Limited

Respondent

Coast Silos (K) Limited

Respondent

Khalid Omar Swaleh T/A Jomvu Scrape Metal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in failing to apportion liability among all defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case against the 1st, 3rd, and 5th defendants without proper consideration of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded was inordinately low given the severity of the injuries.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to apportion liability among all defendants, particularly the 1st and 3rd respondents, despite evidence of their involvement and contractual relationships at the accident site. The court held that interlocutory judgment against the 2nd respondent did not absolve the other defendants of potential liability and that the trial court was obligated to assess their contribution. However, the court agreed with the trial magistrate that the 5th respondent, as an agent of the 2nd respondent, did not bear personal liability, and vicarious liability attached to the 2nd respondent. On the issue of damages, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied to hold 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents jointly and severally liable; damages award upheld.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the appellant against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents jointly and severally for KES 1,600,000 in general damages, KES 100,000 for future medical expenses, and KES 2,000 as special damages.
  • The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents to pay costs in this court and the court below.