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

Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd v Ndegwa & another (Civil Appeal 235 of 2020) [2023] KECA 226 (KLR) (3 March 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KECA 226 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
226
Citation
[2023] KECA 226 (KLR)
Decided
3 March 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (P. Nyamweya, J.) delivered on 1st August 2013 in H.C.C.C No. 2577 of 1990CoramD. K. MUSINGA, DR. K. I. LAIBUTA, M. GACHOKA, CIArb, FCIArb
Holding

The appeal is partially successful, finding that the 2nd respondent was an independent contractor and not an employee of the appellant, and that the appellant is not vicariously liable for the 2nd respondent's actions. The 2nd respondent is ordered to pay KShs. 5,000,000 in general damages and costs.

Facts

A building contract was entered into between Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd and L. Z. Engineering Construction Ltd. The 2nd respondent allegedly trespassed onto the 1st respondent's property and committed various torts.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd respondent was an independent contractor or an employee of the appellant
  2. Whether the appellant was vicariously liable for the 2nd respondent's actions
  3. Whether the 2nd respondent was liable for the loss and damage suffered by the 1st respondent

Reasoning

The court found that the 2nd respondent was an independent contractor and not an employee, and that the appellant was not vicariously liable for the 2nd respondent's actions.

Outcome

The appeal is partially successful.

Orders

  • The 2nd respondent pays KShs. 5,000,000 in general damages and costs.
  • The judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (P. Nyamweya, J.) dated 1st August 2013 is set aside.

Remedies

  • General damages of KShs. 5,000,000 and interest at 14% per annum.
  • Costs of the appeal and proceedings in the trial court.
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case