SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Equator Distributors v Joel Muriu & 3 others [2018] KECA 53 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 53 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
53
Citation
[2018] KECA 53 (KLR)
Decided
20 December 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a High Court judgmentCoramR. N. NAMBUYE, ASIKE MAKHANDIA, J. OTIENO-ODEK
Holding

The appellant, Equator Distributors Limited, is not liable for the negligence of the 2nd respondent, Evan Kinyanjui. Instead, the 3rd respondent, Associated Motors Limited, as employer of the 2nd respondent, is vicariously liable for the negligence of the 2nd respondent. The appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are all liable in contributory negligence.

Facts

Equator Distributors Limited purchased a new motor vehicle from Associated Motors Limited. The vehicle was delivered to Equator's premises in Voi. On April 10, 1999, the vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident, resulting in the death of the driver of another vehicle.

Issues

  1. Is the seller of a motor vehicle liable for an accident that occurs while the vehicle is being driven by a driver employed by the vendor enroute delivery to the premises of the buyer?
  2. Upon sale of a motor vehicle, does the property and risk pass to the purchaser absolving the vendor from any liability for an accident in the course of delivery?

Reasoning

The court held that the appellant did not owe a duty of care to other road users as the accident occurred during the delivery of the vehicle. The sale agreement did not create a contractual relationship for purposes of delivery, thus no indemnity was available to the appellant.

Outcome

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are jointly and severally liable for 70% of the damages awarded by the trial court.

Orders

  • The decree from the trial court is executed as against the appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, jointly and severally, to the total exclusion of the 4th respondent.
  • The appellant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are to bear one third of the costs and liability in the 70% contributory negligence.
  • The 4th respondent shall bear its own costs at the High Court and in this appeal.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case