Joyce Wanjiku Kimani v Eunice Maina, Joseph Ndwiga Nyaga & Direct Line Assurance Company Limited [2020] KEHC 5247 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF  2018

JOYCE WANJIKU KIMANI.................................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

EUNICE MAINA............................................................................1ST RESPONDENT

JOSEPH NDWIGA NYAGA........................................................2ND RESPONDENT

DIRECT LINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED..............3RD RESPONDENT

(From the Original Civil Suit No. 114 of 2013 of Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kerugoya)

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal  arises  from the  Judgment  in   the   Chief   Magistrate’s  Court  Kerugoya  Civil Case   No. 114  of  2013,  in  the  case   the  trial  magistrate  dismissed   the  plaintiff’s  suit  with no  orders  as  to  cost.    The  appellant  who  was the  plaintiff in  the  lower  court,  is  dissatisfied  with  the  judgment of   the  trial magistrate  and  filed  this  appeal  which  raises  the  following  grounds:

(i) The  learned  magistrate  erred  in law  and  in fact  in  finding  that the  deceased,  John   Gakure  Wanjiku  was  to  blame  fully  for  the  fatal  road traffic  accident  of  9th May, 2010.

(ii) The  learned  magistrate  erred  in law  and  in  fact  in absolving  the  2nd  respondent  from  any  blame  in  respect  of  the  said  road  traffic  accident  without  supporting  evidence  or  contrary  to adduced  evidence.

(iii) The  learned magistrate  erred  in law  in  failing  to  distinguish  criminal  liability  from  civil  liability.

(iv) The  learned  magistrate  erred  in law  and  in fact by  ignoring  the  submissions  of  the  plaintiff.

(v) The  learned  magistrate  erred  in  fact  and  in  law  in  unduly  relying  on  the evidence  of  the  2nd  respondent and  paying  little regard,  if  any,  to  the other  adduced  evidence.

(vi) The  learned  magistrate  erred  in law  and  in fact  in finding  that  the  plaintiff  failed  to  prove  her  case  on a balance  of  probability.

(vii) The learned magistrate  erred  in  law  and  in  fact  in occasioning  injustice  upon  the  appellant.

2. He prays that the appeal  be allowed  the   judgment of the  trial magistrate  be  set  aside, and  in  its  place  order  that  special  damages  be  awarded  to  the  plaintiff,  general  damages  under  the  law  reform  and  fatal  accidents  act be awarded  to  the  appellant.

Costs and interest   in the   sub-ordinate  court be awarded  to  the  plaintiff.

3. Brief background of  the  case  is  that;   on  the  9th  of  May, 2010  at  around  8p.m  the  deceased  John Gakure  Wanjiku   who  is  a  son  of  the  appellant, was  knocked  down  by  a  motor-vehicle  registration number  KAQ 219 K,  which  was  being driven by  the  2nd  respondent.   The deceased sustained fatal injuries   and died soon thereafter.  The appellant filed a suit in the  Chief  Magistrate’s  court,  as  the  Administrator  of  the   Estate  of :  John  Gakure  Wanjiku, claiming  special  damages  Kshs; 122,075/=,  general  damages  under  the law reform act and fatal accidents act, costs  and  interest.   The respondents had opposed the  claim and  prayed  that  the   plaintiff’s  suit  be  dismissed  with  costs.  In the Judgment     the  Trial  Magistrate    ordered  that the  plaintiff  had  failed   to proof    the  case  on  a balance of  probabilities  as  required  and  dismissed  the  suit  and  no order  as  to  costs.

4. When this appeal  came  up  for  directions, the  court  ordered  that  the  appeal  proceed  by  way  of  written  submissions.  The appellant proceeded and filed submissions  through  the  firm  of;  Otieno  Okello  &  Company  Advocates.   Though the respondents were given an opportunity to file, they did not file any submissions, and the court proceeded to fix  the  matter  for  judgment.  The appellant in  his  submissions,   submits  that  the  Trial Magistrate  completely  dismissed  the appellant  case,  with  no order  as  to  costs,  on  the ground  that  the  appellant  had  failed  to  proof  her  case  on a balance  of  probabilities,  and  the  deceased  and  not  the  2nd  respondent  was  to blame  for  the  whole  accident.

5. He submits that;  he  served  the  Memorandum  of  Appeal  on  the  respondents   and  the  respondents  did not  file  any  opposing  pleadings   thereto.

He submits that  the  appellants’  has  filed  seven(7)  grounds  of appeal  in  her memorandum  of  appeal,  but  has  stated  that  the  grounds  can be collapsed to one, that is  the  Trial magistrate  erred  in  dismissing  the  appellant’s  case.

As the  first (1st) appellate  court, this  Honorable court  has  a duty as reiterated  in  the  case  of:  Peter  Okello  Omedi  -versus – Clement  Ochieng  (2006) eKLR that the Court,

“is empowered to   consider the  evidence,  evaluate  it,  and  draw  its  own  conclusion,  giving  some  due  diligence  of  the fact  that,  this  court  has  never  seen  or  heard  the  plaintiff  or  the  defendant,  and  therefore  must  give  some  allowance  to  that  inability.”

6. It is submitted that the Trial Magistrate  failed  to  take into  account  the  particular  circumstances  and  probabilities  of  the  evidence  tendered  by  the  plaintiff  and/or   defendant.  This is given that DW2 (a) a  traffic  police  officer,  testified  that it  was  raining  heavily  during  the  material  time  of  the  subject  accident,  which was at  night  -  8. 00p.m  ( paragraphs 10, page 54;  and  paragraph  10, page  55 of  the  record  of  appeal).  This was confirmed by  DW1  ( 2nd  respondent),  who testified  that  it was  raining  heavily  at  the material  time.  The  accident  spot was dark  and  had  no  ( traffic)  lights  ( see paragraphs 10 and  20, page 51  of  the  record of  appeal).  The foregoing shows  that  there was poor  visibility  at  the  material  time of  the  subject  accident.  This is further reinforced by considering that  DW1 stated  during  examination –in-chief  and cross-examination that  he saw  the deceased  only 10 meters  away  before  the  vehicle  hit    him ( see  paragraphs  10 and  20,  page  51 of  the  record  of  appeal).

DW2 testified that the  subsequent  judicial  inquest  into the  death  of  the  deceased  established  that  nobody  was  to  blame  for  the  subject  accident  ( see  paragraphs  10  and 20,  page  54,  and  paragraph  10, page  55  of  the record  of  appeal).  Noteworthy, the subject inquest was  in the nature  of  a criminal  case  since  it  sought  to  find  criminal  liability  on the  part  of  the 2nd  respondent  and  so it  had  a higher  standard  of  proof – beyond  reasonable  doubt.

On the  other  hand,  the  appellant’s  negligence  based  suit  sought  to  apportion  liability  against  the respondents,  especially  the  2nd  respondent,  on the relatively  lower  standard  of  proof  in civil  cases  - balance  of  probability.  However, Dw2 contradicted herself by stating  that  the  police investigations  blamed  the deceased  for  the  subject  accident ( see  paragraph  20, page 54,  paragraph  10, page 55  of  the  record  of  appeal).

Dw2 confirmed during cross –examination that every party has  the  right  to  exercise  due care on  the  road  ( see  paragraph  10, page 55 of  the  record  of appeal).  Therefore, both the  deceased  and the  2nd  respondent  had a duty of care  to each other  at  the  material  time of  the  subject  accident.

7. He submits that  even the  finding  of  the  said  inquest,  and  the   established  poor  whether  condition at  the  time  of  the  accident, it  would  have  been  fair, if  at  the  very minimum  the  Trial court  had  apportioned  liabilities  at  50/50  against  the  deceased  and  the  2nd  respondent,  this  was  the  case,  in  the  aforesaid  case  of :  Peter  Okello  Omedi –v-  Clement  Ochient  ( supra).  Where the High court  noted  on appeal;

“ the  failure  by  both  parties  to  observe  their  obligations  to each other  might  have  caused  the  accident, and  in the absence of  clear  and  controverted  evidence, I  set aside  the   apportionment  of  liabilities  by  the  trial court, and  substitute  with  50  against  each  party.”

8. He urges the  court  to  find  that   the  Trial  magistrate  erred  in  dismissing  the  appellant’s  case  and blaming  the  deceased  100%  and   absolving   the 2nd  respondent  for  the  subject  accident.

That the instant appeal should be allowed.

9. I have considered  the  proceeding  and judgment before  in the  trial  court  and  the  submissions  by  the  appellant.  The appellant had raised several grounds which I have listed  above  in  her  memorandum of  appeal,  however  in  the  submissions  the  appellant  has narrowed  down   the  issue  of  determination to liability only.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION;

This is  a  first  appeal,  and  this court  has  a duty  to  analyze  the  evidence  which  was  adduced  before the  Trial  court,  and  consider  both  the  issues  of  facts  and law.  This was the holding   in the case  of; SELLE & ANOTHER VERSUS ASSOCIATED MOTORBOAT CO. LIMITED & OTHERS  ( 1968)   E.A  123

The evidence before the Trial Magistrate;

(i) The appellant called two (2) witnesses in her case and she testified as PW1,  in  her  evidence  she stated  that:  her  son  died  in  road  traffic  accident,  and  that  she  spent  100,000/=  shillings  and  that  she  had  documents  to  show  that  the  accident  occurred.  That in total she spent Kshs; 122,075. 00/=, and she prayed that  she  be  compensated.

10. The other witness who was called by the appellant Franco Mwaura Kimani ( PW2),  testified  that  he  is  a supervisor  at  Nakumatt  holding  and  that  he  knew  the  deceased  John   Gakure,  and  that  he  had  worked  with  the deceased  who was  a  shop  attendant,  for about  6  months, the  deceased  was  single  and was  about 22years  old.

11. It would seem that the  parties  had  entered  into  negotiations  which did  not  materialize.  The appellant did not call another witness, the respondents’ called Joseph   Ndwiga  Njogu (  DW1)  who  testified  that,  on  9th  May , 2010  he  was  coming  from  Nairobi  driving  a matatu  registration KAQ 219 K, it  was  about  8p.m,  it  was  raining  when  he  reached  Makutano  Junction  from Nairobi.  He saw a person  who was  standing  at  the  edge  of  the  road,  and  wanted  to cross. When he was  about  10 meters  from  him  he  crossed  the  road, and  he  heard noise, and  realized  that  he  had  knocked him.  He was on the left  side  of  the  road. He  applied emergency brakes,  but  in vain. He  fell  down  on the  road  on impact,  and  that  he  was  driving at  a slow  speed, as  he  was  going  uphill.   He stated  that,  he  did  not  veer  off  the  road,  and  did  not  lose  control.  He rushed him to hospital, but the  doctor  said  the  victim had  died.  He then proceeded to Sagana  Police  Station  and   reported.  He was charged at Baricho  Court,   and  was  acquitted. That  It  is  the  deceased,  who was  at  fault,  as he jumped  on  the  road abruptly,  he  was not  wearing  reflective jacket,  the  spot  was  dark  there  were no lights.

12. The  other  witness  who  was  called  was  No. 79440 CP  Linet  Makuti who  is  attached  to  Sagana  Police  station,  traffic  department.   She  produced  an  abstract  issued  in  fatal  accident  case  which  was investigated at   Sagana  Police  station. It  involved  motor-vehicle  KAQ 219K  a  Toyota  Hiace Matatu, and  a  pedestrian  called  John  Gakure Wanjiku, which  occurred  along   Makutano – Sagana Makuyu  Road, and  the  circumstances  are  that  the  driver  of  the  motor-vehicle was driving from  Nairobi  to Nyeri, and at  the  scene  of  the  accident  he  knocked  down a  pedestrian who was  trying to cross from left  to right, he was knocked at  the  centre of  the  road and  sustained  severe  injuries, he  was  rushed  to   Sagana  hospital, where he was pronounced dead  on  arrival.

13. An inquest was opened, the magistrate closed the file, as nobody was to blame.  The driver was not charged. The pedestrian was to blame, because he never took the  precaution while  crossing the road, and  it  was  raining  heavily.

DETERMINATION:

- It Is Trite that there is no liability without   fault. This was stated   in the decision  of:  MUTHUKU –VERSUS- KENYA  CARGO  SERVICES LIMITED  (1991)  eKLR  464  where  it  was  observed

” in my  view   it  was  for  the  appellant  to  proof,  of  course  upon a balance of  probabilities,   one  of  the  forms  of  negligence, as  was  alleged  in the plaint.  Our law has not yet reached the  stage  of  liabilities   without  fault.  The appellant, clearly failed to proof any sort  of  negligence  against the  respondent, and  in  my  respective  view,  his  claim was  rightly dismissed. ”

14. Where a person alleges negligence, he is supposed to proof that there was breach   of a duty of care:  It is  trite  that   whoever  alleges  must  proof.  And  in  this  case,   the  burden was  on  the  appellant,  to  proof  the  particulars  of  negligence  which   were  pleaded  at  paragraph 4  of  the  plaint,  where  it  was  alleged  that; the  vehicle  was being  driven  at  an excessive  speed, without due care  and  attention,  failing to  brake,  swerve,  slow  down  and  in  any  other manner  control the  motor-vehicle,  failing  to  keep a  proper  look out, failing  to  have  regard  for  the  safety  of  pedestrian,  and  in  particular  the  deceased.  Section 107of the Evidence Act, provides that:

“ 1. Whoever   desires any court to give judgment as  to any  legal  right   or liability  dependent  on  the  existence  of  facts  which he  asserts  must  prove  that  those  facts  exist.

2. When a person is  bound  to  prove  the  existence  of  any fact it  is  said  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on that  person.”

In the  case of: Trendsetters  Tires  limited,-versus – John  Wekesa   Wepukhulu (2010) Eklr   where  Ibrahim  J ( as  he  then  was) allowed  an  appeal  and  quoted   Charles   Worth  &  Perci  on  negligence  9th  Edition  at  page  387  on  the  question  of  proof  and  burden  thereof,  where  it  stated   in  an  action  for  negligence “

As  in  every  other  action,  the  burden  of  proofs  falls  upon  the  plaintiff  alleging  it  to establish  each  element  of   tort,  Hence  it  is  for  the  Plaintiff  to  adduce  evidence  of  the  facts  on  which  he  bases  his claims  for  damages.  The evidence called  on  his  behalf,  must  consist  of  such,  either  proved  or  admitted,  and  after  it  is  concluded  two  questions  arise:

(i) Whether on  that  evidence,  negligence  may be  reasonably  be inferred.

(ii) Whether assuming it may be  reasonably  inferred,  negligence  is  in fact  inferred. ”

15. The  court  considered  the  case  of;  Dare  -versus  -  Pulham  (1982) 148 C.L.R. 658,  which described  the  functions  of  pleadings  as  follows:

“pleadings  and  particulars  have  a number  of  functions,  they   furnish  a  statement of the  case, sufficiently  clear  to  allow  the  other  party, a  fair  opportunity  to  meet.  They define  the  issues  for  decision  in  the litigation,  and  thereby  enable  the  reverence  and   admissibility   of  evidence   to  be  determined  at  the  trial and  they  give  a defendant an  understanding  of a  plaintiffs  claim  in  aid  of  a defendant’s  right, to  make  a  payment  into  court………….”

16. The  plaintiff  did  not  tender  any  evidence  to  discharge  the  burden  of  proof, that  the  driver  of motor-vehicle   KAQ 219K  was  negligent.   The  issue  of  burden  of  proof,  was  settled  in  a recent  decision  of  court  of  Appeal, in  the  case  of; EAST  PRODUCE  KENYA  LIMITED  -VERSUS-   CHRISTOPHER  ASTIADO  OSIRO  In  Civil  appeal  No. 43. 2001   where it  was  held  that,  It  is  trite  law  that  the  onus  of  proof  is  on  he  who  alleges,  and  in matters  where  negligence  is  alleged,  the  position,  was  well  laid  in  the  case  of; KIEMA  MUTUKU  -VERSUS-  KENYA   CARGO  HAULING   SERVICES  LIMITED  (1991).Where it  was  held  that:

“  there  is  as  yet  no  liability,  without  fault  in  the  legal  system  in  Kenya,  and  a  plaintiff  must  proof  some  negligence  against  the  defendant,  where  the  claim is  based  on negligence.”

17. The  driver  of  the  motor-vehicle KAQ  219 K  testified  before  the  trial  magistrate  and  gave  the  circumstances,  under  which  the  accident  occurred.  The appellant  did  not  tender  any  evidence  on  how  the  accident  occurred.  Indeed the  two  witnesses  who testified  for  the  plaintiff  were not  at  the  scene  of  the  accident.

18. The  defence  witness  number  2  the  Police  officer  confirmed  that  the driver  of  the  motor-vehicle  was  not  to blame  for  the  accident. As  such  the  appellant  did  not   adduce  evidence  to  establish  that  the  driver  of  the  motor-vehicle,  was  negligent.

19. The  Trial  magistrate, reached  a  finding  of  facts,  that   the  driver  was  not  to blame,  that  it  is  the  deceased  who  was  to  blame.   This  finding  by  the trial   magistrate  was  based  on  the   evidence  which  was  placed  before  him.  And this  court  cannot  interfere  with the finding  of  fact  of  the  Trial  magistrate.

20. I find  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the finding  of  the  Trial  magistrate,  the  appellant  who  had  the  burden  of  proof  on  liabilities  was  unable  to  establish  negligence, on  the  part  of  the  respondents’.

21. The  claim  by  the  appellant that  liability  should  be  apportioned  at  50/50  against  the deceased  and  the  2nd  respondent, cannot  be  upheld, he  had  pleaded  negligence  and set  out  the   particulars  in  the  pleadings.

22. A party is bound  by  his own  pleadings, and  where  negligence  was  alleged,  the  appellants, had the  burden  to  proof  negligence,  as  the  respondents had  denied   they  were  negligent  at  all.   The case cited;  Peter  Okello  Omedi  -versus-  Clement   Ochieng  ( supra)   is  but  persuasive,  I  am  not  persuaded  by  the  decision as  the  respondents  had  denied  negligence, and based  on  the  case  of:  EAST  PRODUCE  KENYA  LIMITED  -VERSUS-  CHRISTOPHER  ASTIADO OSIRO (Supra),  Court  of  Appeal,  it  was  clearly  held  that,  where  negligence  is  alleged, it  must  be  proved  by  the  party  alleging it.   In  this case  the  appellant,  had the  burden  of proof which I find she  did  not  discharge.

23. I  find  that  the   Appellant’s  claim  was  rightly  dismissed.   I therefore find that the  Appeal  is  without merit,  and is  dismissed.  I make no  order  as  to  costs,  as  the   respondents  did  not  file  submissions,   to  oppose  the  Appeal.

Dated at Kerugoya this 26th Day of May 2020.

L.W GITARI

JUDGE