TIMSALES LTD v WILSON MAKOKHA MUREFU [2011] KEHC 1637 (KLR)

REPUBLICOF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA ATNAKURU

HCA NO 179OF 2008

TIMSALESLTD ..............................................................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

WILSON MAKOKHA MUREFU.......................................................RESPONDENT

J U D G E M E N T

The respondentWilson Makokha   Murefu, filed a suit against   the  appellant, Timsales Ltd, claiming   general and special damages on account of injuries that   he sustained on 7/10/2002, in an industrial accident that occurred at the Respondent’s   place of work.

In the plaint, the respondent pleaded that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the appellant who   failed to provide him with a safe working   system and exposing the respondent to   danger. He further pleaded that the appellant failed  to provide him with protective devices while engaged in his work. In the alternative , the respondent   blamed   the appellant for breach of   contract by failing to provide   a safe working condition to avert the injuries.

The appellant filed a defence denyingthat the respondent   was ever employed  by   it as per the terms alleged in the plaint and   denied   that the respondent   was lawfully engaged to work with the   appellant and   denied that the appellant   was in breach   of any terms of the   contract or that it was negligent .In   the alternative the   appellant   alleged that the respondent   solely   caused or   substantially   contributed to the injuries that he suffered. The case was partly heard by Mr   Kirui SRM and taken over by Mr Soita PM who completed the case and in his judgement,   apportioned liability at 90% to 10% in favour of   the Respondent. He assessed the general damages at Ksh120,000/= and special damages of Ksh2,000/= less 10% contribution . The respondent   was also awarded costs and interest.  The   appellant   was aggrieved by  both findings on liability and quantum and filed this appeal.

The appellantraised 7 grounds   of appeal which can be summarized as follows:

1. whetherthe respondent was in the appellants employment atthe time of   injury;

2. Whether the claim for injurywas proved;

3. Whether the award was justified;

4.  Whether the award was excessive.

In support of the grounds of appeal, Mr. Murimi, the appellants counsel submitted that the respondent failed to prove that he was employee of Timsales  Ltd on the date he was allegedlyinjured. He relied on the decisions ofAMALGAMATED SAW MILLS VRS LUCY WANJIRU NDUNGU NAKURU 28 OF 2001 and THADAYO OBUNGA OKONJO Vrs COMPLYINDUSTRIES NAKURU HCA 64/06where the courtsheld that   he who alleges that certain facts exist must   prove as provided by section 107 of the Evidence Act.

It was also counsel’s  submission that the treatment card that wasproduced in evidence by the respondent   was not authentic   because Pw1   John Kimathi Njoroge, a Health Records   and Information   Officer at Elburgon   Nyayo Hospital  denied   that the respondent   was treated at the hospital   and the numbers registered on that day were from No.4114/02 to 4125/07 and that the   last OB number for the year 2002 was 5258/02. He explained   the procedure   of how cards are issued after payment   of 20/= and after being   seen by   a doctor , it is given an O.B number   and then one   goes for medicine. He denied that the card produced by the respondent   being  number 5258, was issued by the hospital. It was counsel’s    submission that the claim is fraudulent and in support   of the   allegation cited,AMALGAMATED SAW MILLS VRS JOHN MWANGI HCA 38/2005and TIMSALES LTD VRS   WILSON LIBUYUA MKU HCC 135/06. It was also submitted that the reportis fraudulent because the respondent told   Dr Dcunha that he was injured   on 21/10/03 by a tree branch which fell on his left forearm but   in his evidence, he  claimed to have been injured on his chest on 7/10/02 by a branch that had already been cut . Counsel   also submitted that the   injury   can not be attributed to   the   negligence   of the appellant   because it is the respondent who had cut the branches   the day before and that   there is therefore no evidence of causation.

For the respondent,Ms Momanyi submitted that the master roll produced   by the appellant   did confirm   that the   respondent   was an employee of  the appellant. As to whether   the records were accurate regarding   the   respondent’s presence at work   on the date of   injury , counsel urged that the records are in custody   of the appellant and they were not made available to the respondent   at the time he testified . Counsel relied   onUNIVERSAL PARENTAL LTD VRS FREDRICK MALENYA HCA 825/06, where the court found that  the respondentwould not be held responsible for   an omission in the Register . As respects  the evidence   of Dw1, it was submitted that he did  not   prove that   he worked   at Elburgon   Nyayo Hospital or that  the Respondent’s name was   not entered   in the   registers   at the  hospital . As regards   causation it was the respondent’s contention   that the respondent   was cutting a tree, a branch fell on him and he was injured. It was the duty of the appellant to ensure   he provided a safe working system that works.

I have now considered and evaluatedthe evidence on record as I am expected to do, this being the first  appeal. There is no doubt   that   the respondent  was an employee of the appellant   as his name appeared   in the muster  roll that   was produced by the appellant in evidence. The appellant’s complaint   however,   is that the   defendant   was not at work on 7/10/02, the day he claims to have been   injured. The respondent  is under  a duty to prove his claim on a balance of probability . He had to prove that he was injured while   engaged as the   appellants   employee   on the date of the alleged incident.   Dw2   David   Mwangi , the security   officer at the appellant company produced the   muster roll which showed that the respondent was not present at   work on the material   date. He  also denied that any incident   was reported on the day as   there was no entry   in the incidents   register which was also produced in evidence. Though    the respondent   named one Kumen as his   supervisor, the respondent   never made any report of   injury   to anybody . He did not tell the court whether he reported  the incident to the supervisor before or after going to the hospital for treatment. The respondent testified   that he even worked the next day. But he never made a report of the accident and injury even then. It is no wonder then, that  there was no entry   in the incident register about the   occurrence of any incident on that date.

Regardingevidence of DW1 John Kinuthia the Records Officer at Elburgon Nyayo Hospital, testified that  the  treatment card produced by the respondent was not issued by that hospital on the said date. I however find that his evidence doubtful because he did not produce any evidence to prove that he was an employee at the said hospital at the time. He did not even produce any evidence to confirm that the cards issued on that date were different numbers.

It is notin doubt that the respondent  was injured as confirmed   by Doctor Omuyoma in his report and the treatment chit. In my view Doctor   D’cunha’s  report must relate to another incident all together as the respondent   claimed to have other cases with the appellant .

Allthe above evidence considered, I find that failure to report  the incident does raise a doubt in my mind as to whether the Respondent was injured on the said date while in the appellant’s employment and I find that the respondent did not   prove his case on a balance of probability. The trial court did not consider whether or not the respondent was at work on that material day. The court merely believed that the respondent was injured . I find that the respondent   did not prove his case to the required standard.

In the event that the court is wrong at arriving at the said finding, the question iswhether the respondent proved that the injury   was as a result of the   appellants negligence. In his evidence, the respondent said that   he blamed the appellant for hurrying him.

InWINFIELDAND JOLOWICZ on TORT 13TH EditionAt common law  the employee’s duty is a duty of care and it follows that the burdenof proving negligence rests with the plaintiff workman  throughout   the case. It has even been said that if he alleges a failure to provide a reasonably safe system of working, the plaintiff must plead  and therefore prove what the  proper system was and in what relevant  respect it was not observed . It is true  that theseverity of this particularburden has been somewhat reduced, but it remains clear that for a workman merely to prove the occurence of the accident will normally be insufficient” which   was relied   upon by Mr Murimi, the author   states as follows at page 203 “

In the instant casethe respondent pleaded that the appellant   did not   provide a safe working system .The respondent did not state what a safe working system was. In his evidence, he said that he blamed the appellant for hurrying him up. It was left to the court to conclude that either there was shortage of man power or that the   respondent was given too much work to do in a shot time   that he had to hurry and hence making   the working system unsafe.  In my view , I would have found the   appellant to have been negligent and would  apportion liability. The  respondent has a duty of care owed to himself. He  had cut   the branches the previous day and should have been more careful in . I would have  apportioned liability at 20% as against   the respondent.

With regardto the award on quantum I would   agree with Mr Murimi that award of the trial court was excessive in the circumstances given the minor injuries suffered by the respondent. Doctor Omuyoma found that the respondent suffered a deep   cut wound on the anterior chest  and soft tissue injuries to the chest. He assessed the degree to be harm. InSOKORO SAW MILLS LTD vs GRACE NDUTA HCCA 99/2003 , the respondent suffered soft tissueinjuries to the hip joint and the back. On appeal the court awarded   Ksh,30,000/= on 24/3/06. In the case   ofFRANCIS  MAINA MWANGI vrs SAMSOM KURIA HCC1291/1990  which was decided in 1991, an awardof ksh80,000/= was made but that did not compare well with the respondent’s injuries, because the plaintiff in that case  suffered more serious injuries. In my view the award made by the magistrate was excessive in the circumstances and I would have made an award of Ksh50,000/= as general damages less contribution of 20%.

For the reasonsgiven in this judgment, the appeal is hereby allowed, the judgement dated 28/10/08 is hereby set aside,  with the respondent bearing the costs of the proceedings in the lower court and the appeal.

Ordersaccordingly .

DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE 2011

R.P.V WENDOH

JUDGE

PRESENT

Ms Siko holding brieffor Murimi for Appellant

Ms Wanjiku holdingbrief for Moseti for Respondent

CC: Kennedy Oguma