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

Josephine Mwikali Muindi v Mathew W. Murage [2015] KEHC 864 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 864 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
864
Citation
[2015] KEHC 864 (KLR)
Decided
13 November 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the original judgment and decree of Mrs. Hellen Omondi(CM) in Milimani Courts, CMCC No. 3906 of 2000CoramJ. K. SERGON
Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding the appellant Kshs. 1,670,100/=.

Facts

The appellant Josephine Mwikali Muindi sued the respondent Mathew W. Murage for compensation following a road accident on 2nd September 1992 in Nairobi. The appellant claimed the respondent was negligent and hit her with a vehicle registration number KTQ 898, causing severe injuries.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding the respondent not liable
  2. Whether the trial court misdirected herself on the inconsistencies between the appellant's evidence and her witnesses on liability
  3. Whether the trial court erred in not finding the plaintiff witness proved the identity of the motor vehicle registration number KTQ 898
  4. Whether the trial court erred in not finding the appellant was hit by motor vehicle registration number KTQ 898
  5. Whether the trial court erred in not finding the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were consistent with the accident subject of the suit
  6. Whether the trial court erred in not awarding general and special damages, future medical expenses and loss of earnings and diminished earning capacity

Reasoning

The court upheld the trial court's finding that the evidence was contradictory and dismissed the claim. It also affirmed the trial court's decision on the inconsistencies and the lack of proof of the vehicle registration number.

Outcome

Affirmed

Orders

  • Awarded the appellant Kshs. 1,670,100/=
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