(Being an Appeal from the Judgment of the Small Claims Court of Kenya at Nairobi delivered by the Hon. Resident Magistrate B.A Luova on the 6th October 2022 in Machakos SCC COMM NO E269 of 2022)
1. This is an appeal against both liability and quantum. In the trial court, the Respondent (the Claimant) sued the Appellants seeking compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities in the sum of Kshs 400,000/= arising from a road traffic accident that occurred on 27th April 2022 along the Machakos–Wote Road. In the Statement of Claim, the 1st Appellant was sued as the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KAN 253W, Toyota Corolla, while the 2nd Appellant was sued as the beneficial owner thereof.
2. The respondent alleged that he was travelling as a passenger in Motor Vehicle Registration No. KAN 253W when, at the Katoloni area, the said motor vehicle was negligently and carelessly driven, causing it to lose control, veer off the road, and overturn. As a result, the Respondent sustained severe injuries and suffered pain, loss, and loss of amenities.
3. In their defence and counterclaim, the Appellants denied the Respondent’s claim. They averred that they had entered into a motor vehicle lease agreement with the Respondent for personal use at an agreed rate of Kshs 3,500 per day, which sums were paid periodically. They contended that from 1st January 2022, the Respondent took possession and control of the motor vehicle and made payments in accordance with the agreement. They further asserted that the said agreement was still in force on 27th April 2022 when the accident occurred along the Machakos–Wote Road at Katoloni.
4. The Appellants alleged that the Respondent fraudulently claimed to have been a passenger in the subject motor vehicle and introduced an unknown individual as the driver. Consequently, they sought judgment against the Respondent for the expected income from January to July 2022, being the duration of the lease agreement, amounting to Kshs 247,000/=; motor vehicle repair costs totaling Kshs 163,280/=, comprising assessment and reassessment fees, total repair costs and breakdown service charges; as well as general and aggravated damages for inconvenience, together with interest.
5. The matter proceeded to full hearing. Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent herein in the following terms:
a.) Liability assessed at 100% jointly and severally.
b.) General damages awarded at Kshs 230, 000/=
c.) Costs of the suit from the date of judgment.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellants herein filed this appeal on the grounds that the adjudicator erred in law and in fact by failing to give a reasoned judgment contrary to Order 21 Rule 4 and 5 of the Civil procedure Rules as to the process and deduction leading to her finding; by failing to consider all the facts placed before her and considering and basing her judgment on imaginations and facts that were not proved and not considering all the issues before her by not recognising that a) there was a motor vehicle lease agreement between the parties b) the Respondent was the one in actual, equitable and constructive ownership of the accident motor vehicle at the time of the accident c) there was payment for services rendered by the Plaintiff and that could not be wished away d) The Appellants had suffered loss and damage for the actions of the Respondent by loss of income damage to the accident motor vehicle and attendant costs e) The Appellants could not be liable at all to the Respondent as the driver was in the employment of the Respondent and any liability was to him and not the Appellants and f) The appellants lost money as a result; in failing to appreciate the facts and evidence before her thereby arriving at an erroneous finding that the Appellants were responsible for the Respondent’s injuries; by considering facts and issues not placed before the court and not considering the true facts before her thereby arriving at an erroneous finding; in considering the facts that were not proven by evidence and ignoring proven facts relating to control of the vehicle and the reasons for payment of monies to the 2nd Appellant and in finding that the Respondent proved a case on a balance of probability with respect to the tortious liability of negligence and proceeded to award damages and costs.
7. The appellants prayed that the appeal be allowed with costs and, that the judgment delivered on 6th October 2022 be set aside and that the Appellant’s counterclaim be allowed with costs and interest.
8. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellants submissions are dated 2nd January 2024 while the Respondent’s submissions are dated 12th June 2025.
Appellant’s submissions
9. The Appellants commenced their submissions by outlining the background of the claim before addressing the issues of liability and quantum.
10. The Appellants submitted that they entered into a motor vehicle lease agreement with the Respondent for personal use at an agreed rate of Kshs 3,500 per day, which payments were made periodically. They contended that from January 2022, Joshua Nthyolo Kiilu took possession and control of the motor vehicle and made payments in accordance with the agreement. The Appellants further stated that the Respondent paid Kshs 100,000 into the Faulu account of the 2nd Appellant and, through his wife, Jackline Mumo, made an additional payment of Kshs 150,000 to the 2nd Appellant via M-Pesa. According to them, the lease agreement was still subsisting on the date of the accident and they accused the Respondent of fraudulently claiming to have been a passenger in a motor vehicle which he controlled at the material time.
11. The Appellants further submitted that the Investigating Officer testified that the driver of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident was an employee of the Respondent. They contended that the said driver was unknown to them and that they recorded statements with the police to that effect. Consequently, they argued that they could not be held vicariously liable for the driver’s actions. In support of this position, they relied on Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1986, Khayigila v Gigi & Co. Limited & Another [1987] KLR 76, submitting that the driver was neither acting on their behalf nor using the motor vehicle at their request. They maintained that, based on the Investigating Officer’s testimony, the Respondent was the effective owner of the motor vehicle by virtue of the lease agreement dated 1st January 2022 and was therefore liable for the accident. They also referred to correspondence addressed to the Claims Department of Directline Assurance Company Limited which confirmed that the Respondent was the beneficiary of the motor vehicle’s operations at the time of the accident.
12. The Appellants also submitted that they had initiated action against the Investigating Officer for failing to discharge his constitutional duties diligently and for allegedly provided misleading information regarding the accident. They contended, however, that during testimony the officer confirmed that the driver was an employee of the Respondent, thereby corroborating the Appellants’ position that the Respondent exercised control over the motor vehicle on the day of the accident. They also highlighted inconsistencies in the investigation, pointing to two police abstracts bearing different particulars of ownership: one dated 18th May 2022 indicating the owner as Wambua Kyelee, and another dated 30th May 2022 indicating the owner as Wambua Salee/Joshua Kiilu. While relying on Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act, Anne Wambui Ndiritu v Joseph Kiprono Ropkoi & Another [2005] 1 EA 334, and Daniel Torotich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another [2014] eKLR, the Appellants submitted that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the pleaded particulars of negligence.
13. The Appellants also argued that the Respondent had no defence to the counterclaim. They contended that when questioned about the purpose of the payments made to the 2nd Appellant, the Respondent alleged that the monies were for the purchase of a plot of land; an explanation which they argued was unsupported and irrelevant to the dispute. They submitted that they had produced documentary evidence of payments made by the Respondent to demonstrate the existence of the lease agreement. In addition, they relied on photographs of the motor vehicle taken after the accident, a motor vehicle assessment report dated 27th June 2022 and breakdown service receipts dated 8th June 2022 to demonstrate the extent of damage and repair costs incurred. On that basis, they urged the court to hold the Respondent liable to compensate them for the repair costs, having been in control of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident.
14. In conclusion, the Appellants urged the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned adjudicator, and enter judgment in their favour as prayed in the counterclaim.
Respondent’s submissions
15. The Respondent’s submissions commenced his submission with a brief background of the matter and proceeded to address three issues for determination, namely: whether the trial court erred in holding the Appellants 100% liable; whether the trial court erred in awarding general damages in the sum of Kshs 230,000/= in favour of the Respondent; and whether the appeal ought to be allowed.
16. On the first issue, the Respondent relying on Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the decision in Mununga Tea Factory Limited & Another v Karani (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2006) [2023] KEHC 19439 (KLR), urged this Court to find that the trial court gave sufficient reasons for apportioning liability at 100%. He submitted that the trial court correctly observed that the motor vehicle belonged to the Appellants at the time of the accident and that his payment of a fare of Kshs 1,000/= qualified him as a passenger. He further submitted that the Appellant, in his testimony, did not dispute ownership of the motor vehicle at the material time, but instead advanced a narrative that the vehicle had been leased to him. He relied on Mate Wangombe (Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 10190 (KLR) to argue that the Appellants failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged lease agreement. He also relied on Boniface Waiti & Another v Michael Kariuki Kamau [2007] eKLR to submit that it was the driver’s duty to keep a proper lookout while driving. The Respondent testified that the motor vehicle was being driven at a very high and excessive speed, rendering the driver unable to control it, and that in an attempt to avoid colliding with a motorcycle, the vehicle struck the pavement and overturned.
17. On the second issue, the Respondent submitted that the assessment of damages is a discretionary function of the trial court and that an appellate court should exercise restraint when invited to interfere with such discretion. He relied on Ken Odondi & 2 Others v James Okoth Omburah t/a Okoth Omburah & Company Advocates [2013] eKLR and John Njue v Daniel Nyaga Muriuki [2019] eKLR in support of this proposition. He further submitted that he sustained blunt head injury to the anterior chest wall, extensive bruising to the left hand, and blunt injuries to both knees, and that the award of Kshs 230,000/= was neither excessive nor inordinately high.
18. In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the appeal lacks merit and urged the Court to dismiss it with costs.
Analysis and Determination
19. This court has considered the grounds of appeal, the proceedings of the lower court and the submissions filed by parties. To begin with, the duty of this court as the appellate court exercising jurisdiction under the Small Claims Court squarely falls under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. This section limits the jurisdiction of the High Court on appeals from the Small Claims Court to matters of law only.
20. What constitutes, points of law, has been settled in the case of Peter Gichuki King'ara Vs IEBC & 2 Others, Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 31 Of 2013, (Court of Appeal) (Visram, Koome & Odek, JJA) Of 13.02.2014, where the Court of Appeal stated as follows: -
“[I]t is trite law that the exercise of judicial discretion is a point of law and that the trial court in denying a prayer of scrutiny is exercising judicial discretion. The Court concluded that it would not be feasible for the Court of Appeal to order for a recount and scrutiny as this would involve matters of fact that were within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The court further held that the question of whether the trial judge properly considered and evaluated the evidence and arrived at a correct determination that is supported by law and evidence – with the caveat that the appeal court did not see the witness demeanor – is an issue of law.”
21. Guided by the above, this court has a duty to consider the grounds of appeal as they appear in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 1st November 2022, the Record of Appeal and the submissions of both parties and discern the primary question of law that calls for determination.
22. Having carefully reviewed the Memorandum of Appeal and the grounds set out there under, I note that the Appellants raise issues of both law and fact. All the ground of appeal are premised on the grounds that the learned adjudicator erred in both the law and fact. The submissions have similarly been crafted to support both factual and law issues.
23. For instance, the complaint that the adjudicator failed to consider the existence of a motor vehicle lease agreement, failed to appreciate who had control of the motor vehicle, failed to recognise who employed the driver, and failed to consider payments allegedly made under the lease, all involve matters that require the trial court to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and make findings of fact. Any interrogation of whether such an agreement existed, whether it was operative on the date of the accident, who was in possession or control of the vehicle, and whether the Respondent was a passenger or a lessee, would necessarily entail a re-analysis of oral testimony, documentary exhibits and the demeanor of witnesses. Such an exercise squarely falls outside the remit of this Court under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court.
24. Similarly, the ground alleging that the learned adjudicator erred by finding the Appellants 100% liable does not, in the context of this appeal, raise a point of law. Liability was determined after the trial court assessed the evidence on negligence, ownership, control and vicarious liability. To interrogate whether the driver was acting on behalf of the Appellants or the Respondent, or whether vicarious liability attached, would require this Court to revisit factual findings on employment, agency, and use of the motor vehicle. That would amount to a rehearing on facts, which is expressly proscribed.
25. The complaint that the trial court ignored the Appellants’ counterclaim and the losses allegedly suffered by them suffers the same fate. Whether the counterclaim was proved, whether the payments relied upon were linked to a lease agreement or to another transaction, and whether the repair costs were attributable to the Respondent’s conduct are evidentiary questions. Determining them would compel this court to reassess exhibits, draw factual inferences, and possibly reach conclusions different from those of the trial court. That is not an exercise permitted on an appeal limited to points of law. Accordingly, this court will limit itself from delving into the issues of facts and address the only issue of law arising which is; Whether adjudicator failed to deliver a reasoned judgment contrary to Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
26. Order 21 Rule 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that;
4. Contents of judgment [Order 21, rule 4]
Judgments in defended suits shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
5. Court to state its decision on each issue
27. Examining the judgment delivered by the trial court delivered on 6th October 2022, it is evident that the trial court identified the nature of the claim as one arising from a road traffic accident; addressed ownership of the motor vehicle; made a finding that the Respondent was a passenger at the time of the accident; attributed liability at 100% against the Appellants and assessed general damages based on the injuries sustained. While the Appellants challenges the correctness of these findings, correctness pertains to matters of fact and merit, rather than form.
28. Read holistically the judgment, demonstrates that the adjudicator isolated the central issues of liability and quantum and rendered determinations on each. The fact that the court did not expressly catalogue every evidentiary conflict or exhaustively analyse the alleged lease agreement does not, in itself, render the judgment unreasoned in law. What is required under Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 is that the judgment sets out the case, identifies the issues, states the decision, and provides reasons. The trial court satisfied these requirements.
29. Accordingly, on the narrow and only sustainable point of law before this Court, I find that the impugned judgment meets the legal threshold of a reasoned judgment under Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The judgment contained the essential ingredients required by law, notwithstanding the Appellants’ dissatisfaction with its factual conclusions. In view of the foregoing, the appeal fails in its entirety, and each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
Orders accordingly
Delivered, Dated and Signed this 22nd day of January 2026
1. This is an appeal against both liability and quantum. In the trial court, the Respondent (the Claimant) sued the Appellants seeking compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities in the sum of Kshs 400,000/= arising from a road traffic accident that occurred on 27th April 2022 along the Machakos–Wote Road. In the Statement of Claim, the 1st Appellant was sued as the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KAN 253W, Toyota Corolla, while the 2nd Appellant was sued as the beneficial owner thereof.
2. The respondent alleged that he was travelling as a passenger in Motor Vehicle Registration No. KAN 253W when, at the Katoloni area, the said motor vehicle was negligently and carelessly driven, causing it to lose control, veer off the road, and overturn. As a result, the Respondent sustained severe injuries and suffered pain, loss, and loss of amenities.
3. In their defence and counterclaim, the Appellants denied the Respondent’s claim. They averred that they had entered into a motor vehicle lease agreement with the Respondent for personal use at an agreed rate of Kshs 3,500 per day, which sums were paid periodically. They contended that from 1st January 2022, the Respondent took possession and control of the motor vehicle and made payments in accordance with the agreement. They further asserted that the said agreement was still in force on 27th April 2022 when the accident occurred along the Machakos–Wote Road at Katoloni.
4. The Appellants alleged that the Respondent fraudulently claimed to have been a passenger in the subject motor vehicle and introduced an unknown individual as the driver. Consequently, they sought judgment against the Respondent for the expected income from January to July 2022, being the duration of the lease agreement, amounting to Kshs 247,000/=; motor vehicle repair costs totaling Kshs 163,280/=, comprising assessment and reassessment fees, total repair costs and breakdown service charges; as well as general and aggravated damages for inconvenience, together with interest.
5. The matter proceeded to full hearing. Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent herein in the following terms:
a.) Liability assessed at 100% jointly and severally.
b.) General damages awarded at Kshs 230, 000/=
c.) Costs of the suit from the date of judgment.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellants herein filed this appeal on the grounds that the adjudicator erred in law and in fact by failing to give a reasoned judgment contrary to Order 21 Rule 4 and 5 of the Civil procedure Rules as to the process and deduction leading to her finding; by failing to consider all the facts placed before her and considering and basing her judgment on imaginations and facts that were not proved and not considering all the issues before her by not recognising that a) there was a motor vehicle lease agreement between the parties b) the Respondent was the one in actual, equitable and constructive ownership of the accident motor vehicle at the time of the accident c) there was payment for services rendered by the Plaintiff and that could not be wished away d) The Appellants had suffered loss and damage for the actions of the Respondent by loss of income damage to the accident motor vehicle and attendant costs e) The Appellants could not be liable at all to the Respondent as the driver was in the employment of the Respondent and any liability was to him and not the Appellants and f) The appellants lost money as a result; in failing to appreciate the facts and evidence before her thereby arriving at an erroneous finding that the Appellants were responsible for the Respondent’s injuries; by considering facts and issues not placed before the court and not considering the true facts before her thereby arriving at an erroneous finding; in considering the facts that were not proven by evidence and ignoring proven facts relating to control of the vehicle and the reasons for payment of monies to the 2nd Appellant and in finding that the Respondent proved a case on a balance of probability with respect to the tortious liability of negligence and proceeded to award damages and costs.
7. The appellants prayed that the appeal be allowed with costs and, that the judgment delivered on 6th October 2022 be set aside and that the Appellant’s counterclaim be allowed with costs and interest.
8. The appeal was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellants submissions are dated 2nd January 2024 while the Respondent’s submissions are dated 12th June 2025.
Appellant’s submissions
9. The Appellants commenced their submissions by outlining the background of the claim before addressing the issues of liability and quantum.
10. The Appellants submitted that they entered into a motor vehicle lease agreement with the Respondent for personal use at an agreed rate of Kshs 3,500 per day, which payments were made periodically. They contended that from January 2022, Joshua Nthyolo Kiilu took possession and control of the motor vehicle and made payments in accordance with the agreement. The Appellants further stated that the Respondent paid Kshs 100,000 into the Faulu account of the 2nd Appellant and, through his wife, Jackline Mumo, made an additional payment of Kshs 150,000 to the 2nd Appellant via M-Pesa. According to them, the lease agreement was still subsisting on the date of the accident and they accused the Respondent of fraudulently claiming to have been a passenger in a motor vehicle which he controlled at the material time.
11. The Appellants further submitted that the Investigating Officer testified that the driver of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident was an employee of the Respondent. They contended that the said driver was unknown to them and that they recorded statements with the police to that effect. Consequently, they argued that they could not be held vicariously liable for the driver’s actions. In support of this position, they relied on Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1986, Khayigila v Gigi & Co. Limited & Another [1987] KLR 76, submitting that the driver was neither acting on their behalf nor using the motor vehicle at their request. They maintained that, based on the Investigating Officer’s testimony, the Respondent was the effective owner of the motor vehicle by virtue of the lease agreement dated 1st January 2022 and was therefore liable for the accident. They also referred to correspondence addressed to the Claims Department of Directline Assurance Company Limited which confirmed that the Respondent was the beneficiary of the motor vehicle’s operations at the time of the accident.
12. The Appellants also submitted that they had initiated action against the Investigating Officer for failing to discharge his constitutional duties diligently and for allegedly provided misleading information regarding the accident. They contended, however, that during testimony the officer confirmed that the driver was an employee of the Respondent, thereby corroborating the Appellants’ position that the Respondent exercised control over the motor vehicle on the day of the accident. They also highlighted inconsistencies in the investigation, pointing to two police abstracts bearing different particulars of ownership: one dated 18th May 2022 indicating the owner as Wambua Kyelee, and another dated 30th May 2022 indicating the owner as Wambua Salee/Joshua Kiilu. While relying on Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act, Anne Wambui Ndiritu v Joseph Kiprono Ropkoi & Another [2005] 1 EA 334, and Daniel Torotich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Muriithi & Another [2014] eKLR, the Appellants submitted that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the pleaded particulars of negligence.
13. The Appellants also argued that the Respondent had no defence to the counterclaim. They contended that when questioned about the purpose of the payments made to the 2nd Appellant, the Respondent alleged that the monies were for the purchase of a plot of land; an explanation which they argued was unsupported and irrelevant to the dispute. They submitted that they had produced documentary evidence of payments made by the Respondent to demonstrate the existence of the lease agreement. In addition, they relied on photographs of the motor vehicle taken after the accident, a motor vehicle assessment report dated 27th June 2022 and breakdown service receipts dated 8th June 2022 to demonstrate the extent of damage and repair costs incurred. On that basis, they urged the court to hold the Respondent liable to compensate them for the repair costs, having been in control of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident.
14. In conclusion, the Appellants urged the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned adjudicator, and enter judgment in their favour as prayed in the counterclaim.
Respondent’s submissions
15. The Respondent’s submissions commenced his submission with a brief background of the matter and proceeded to address three issues for determination, namely: whether the trial court erred in holding the Appellants 100% liable; whether the trial court erred in awarding general damages in the sum of Kshs 230,000/= in favour of the Respondent; and whether the appeal ought to be allowed.
16. On the first issue, the Respondent relying on Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the decision in Mununga Tea Factory Limited & Another v Karani (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2006) [2023] KEHC 19439 (KLR), urged this Court to find that the trial court gave sufficient reasons for apportioning liability at 100%. He submitted that the trial court correctly observed that the motor vehicle belonged to the Appellants at the time of the accident and that his payment of a fare of Kshs 1,000/= qualified him as a passenger. He further submitted that the Appellant, in his testimony, did not dispute ownership of the motor vehicle at the material time, but instead advanced a narrative that the vehicle had been leased to him. He relied on Mate Wangombe (Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 10190 (KLR) to argue that the Appellants failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged lease agreement. He also relied on Boniface Waiti & Another v Michael Kariuki Kamau [2007] eKLR to submit that it was the driver’s duty to keep a proper lookout while driving. The Respondent testified that the motor vehicle was being driven at a very high and excessive speed, rendering the driver unable to control it, and that in an attempt to avoid colliding with a motorcycle, the vehicle struck the pavement and overturned.
17. On the second issue, the Respondent submitted that the assessment of damages is a discretionary function of the trial court and that an appellate court should exercise restraint when invited to interfere with such discretion. He relied on Ken Odondi & 2 Others v James Okoth Omburah t/a Okoth Omburah & Company Advocates [2013] eKLR and John Njue v Daniel Nyaga Muriuki [2019] eKLR in support of this proposition. He further submitted that he sustained blunt head injury to the anterior chest wall, extensive bruising to the left hand, and blunt injuries to both knees, and that the award of Kshs 230,000/= was neither excessive nor inordinately high.
18. In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the appeal lacks merit and urged the Court to dismiss it with costs.
Analysis and Determination
19. This court has considered the grounds of appeal, the proceedings of the lower court and the submissions filed by parties. To begin with, the duty of this court as the appellate court exercising jurisdiction under the Small Claims Court squarely falls under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. This section limits the jurisdiction of the High Court on appeals from the Small Claims Court to matters of law only.
20. What constitutes, points of law, has been settled in the case of Peter Gichuki King'ara Vs IEBC & 2 Others, Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 31 Of 2013, (Court of Appeal) (Visram, Koome & Odek, JJA) Of 13.02.2014, where the Court of Appeal stated as follows: -
“[I]t is trite law that the exercise of judicial discretion is a point of law and that the trial court in denying a prayer of scrutiny is exercising judicial discretion. The Court concluded that it would not be feasible for the Court of Appeal to order for a recount and scrutiny as this would involve matters of fact that were within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The court further held that the question of whether the trial judge properly considered and evaluated the evidence and arrived at a correct determination that is supported by law and evidence – with the caveat that the appeal court did not see the witness demeanor – is an issue of law.”
21. Guided by the above, this court has a duty to consider the grounds of appeal as they appear in the Memorandum of Appeal dated 1st November 2022, the Record of Appeal and the submissions of both parties and discern the primary question of law that calls for determination.
22. Having carefully reviewed the Memorandum of Appeal and the grounds set out there under, I note that the Appellants raise issues of both law and fact. All the ground of appeal are premised on the grounds that the learned adjudicator erred in both the law and fact. The submissions have similarly been crafted to support both factual and law issues.
23. For instance, the complaint that the adjudicator failed to consider the existence of a motor vehicle lease agreement, failed to appreciate who had control of the motor vehicle, failed to recognise who employed the driver, and failed to consider payments allegedly made under the lease, all involve matters that require the trial court to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and make findings of fact. Any interrogation of whether such an agreement existed, whether it was operative on the date of the accident, who was in possession or control of the vehicle, and whether the Respondent was a passenger or a lessee, would necessarily entail a re-analysis of oral testimony, documentary exhibits and the demeanor of witnesses. Such an exercise squarely falls outside the remit of this Court under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court.
24. Similarly, the ground alleging that the learned adjudicator erred by finding the Appellants 100% liable does not, in the context of this appeal, raise a point of law. Liability was determined after the trial court assessed the evidence on negligence, ownership, control and vicarious liability. To interrogate whether the driver was acting on behalf of the Appellants or the Respondent, or whether vicarious liability attached, would require this Court to revisit factual findings on employment, agency, and use of the motor vehicle. That would amount to a rehearing on facts, which is expressly proscribed.
25. The complaint that the trial court ignored the Appellants’ counterclaim and the losses allegedly suffered by them suffers the same fate. Whether the counterclaim was proved, whether the payments relied upon were linked to a lease agreement or to another transaction, and whether the repair costs were attributable to the Respondent’s conduct are evidentiary questions. Determining them would compel this court to reassess exhibits, draw factual inferences, and possibly reach conclusions different from those of the trial court. That is not an exercise permitted on an appeal limited to points of law. Accordingly, this court will limit itself from delving into the issues of facts and address the only issue of law arising which is; Whether adjudicator failed to deliver a reasoned judgment contrary to Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
26. Order 21 Rule 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that;
4. Contents of judgment [Order 21, rule 4]
Judgments in defended suits shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
5. Court to state its decision on each issue
27. Examining the judgment delivered by the trial court delivered on 6th October 2022, it is evident that the trial court identified the nature of the claim as one arising from a road traffic accident; addressed ownership of the motor vehicle; made a finding that the Respondent was a passenger at the time of the accident; attributed liability at 100% against the Appellants and assessed general damages based on the injuries sustained. While the Appellants challenges the correctness of these findings, correctness pertains to matters of fact and merit, rather than form.
28. Read holistically the judgment, demonstrates that the adjudicator isolated the central issues of liability and quantum and rendered determinations on each. The fact that the court did not expressly catalogue every evidentiary conflict or exhaustively analyse the alleged lease agreement does not, in itself, render the judgment unreasoned in law. What is required under Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 is that the judgment sets out the case, identifies the issues, states the decision, and provides reasons. The trial court satisfied these requirements.
29. Accordingly, on the narrow and only sustainable point of law before this Court, I find that the impugned judgment meets the legal threshold of a reasoned judgment under Order 21 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The judgment contained the essential ingredients required by law, notwithstanding the Appellants’ dissatisfaction with its factual conclusions. In view of the foregoing, the appeal fails in its entirety, and each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.
Orders accordingly
Delivered, Dated and Signed this 22nd day of January 2026