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

Kakuzi Limited v David Karanja Ngoki [2015] KEHC 4722 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 4722 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4722
Citation
[2015] KEHC 4722 (KLR)
Decided
29 April 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment of the Resident MagistrateCoramB. THURANIRA JADEN
Holding

The Appellant is 50% liable for the accident and the Respondent 50% liable. General damages are Ksh 50,000/= and special damages are Ksh 2,000/=. The Respondent shall have the costs of the suit in the lower court plus interest at court rates.

Facts

Respondent David Karanja Ngoki sued Appellant Kakuzi Limited for damages claiming he was injured when he was cut by a panga while working for the Appellant. The Appellant denied being the Respondent's employer and blamed the Respondent for the accident.

Issues

  1. Liability of the Appellant
  2. Quantum of damages

Reasoning

The court found the Respondent's evidence proved that he was injured while working for the Appellant. The court agreed with the Respondent on the Appellant's failure to provide protective gear, but disagreed on the extent of liability and quantum of damages.

Outcome

Appeal partly succeeds

Orders

  • General damages Ksh 50,000/= and special damages Ksh 2,000/=

Remedies

  • The Respondent shall have the costs of the suit in the lower court plus interest at court rates.
  • Each party to bear own costs of this appeal.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Mumias Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Samson Muvinda, Kakamega HCCA No. 58 of 2000 (unreported)
  • Kemfro Africa Limited t/a Meru Express Services & Another vs A.M. Lubia and Another (No.2) (1982-88) L KAR 727
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