Search court decisions

…It is the averred in the pliantiff’s affidavit (para 8) that the defendant never questioned any of those statements of account or his liability for the amount shown on the statements.…

…or to recover from the plaintiff by way of a counterclaim, a sum of money which does not readily reduce the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff, does not entitle the defendant prevent the plaintiff from obtaining…

…At first the Defendant denied liability for the negligence but on the 30th October, 1991, the parties agreed that the Plaintiff was himself 10% negligent while the Defendant was 90% negligent.…

…Liability was accordingly agree on those terms and I do not have to deal with the issue of liability. Special damages were also agreed at Shs.1,150/-. What general damages should I award to the Plaintiff?…

…However, during the course of the hearing it occurred to me that the claim to recover, treble the value of the goods sold was a liability imposed purely by statute and that on the authority of Barraclough v Brown & others…

…I am strengthened in this view by the clear distinction between the liability imposed by section 7 and the right to recover bestowed by section 8 and 10 of the said Act.…

…attachment of a defendant’s property before judgement because as the court of Appeal stated in Kana Kanyoro v Francis Nderu and Others CA 142/87 “It is hardly consistent wi th justice to exact “punished” before the defendant’s liability…

…to execution is established but also because in view of the hardy and time consuming process of the courts, the rights and liabilities of the parties may not be determined for a long time, pos sibly years.”…

…Originally the defendant instructed Messrs Bryson Inamdar & Bowyer who filed a defence denying liability.…

…Each of the two defendants filed their written statements of defence denying their liability to the plaintiff but the court need not narrate these defences because when the suit came up for hearing Mr Juma appearing for both…

…the defendants indicated to the court that the defendants have now admitted liability and that the court should only decide the quantum of general and special damages.…

…Each of the two defendants filed their written statements of defence denying their liability to the plaintiff but the court need not narrate these defences because when the suit came up for hearing Mr Juma appearing for both…

…the defendants indicated to the court that the defendants have now admitted liability and that the court should only decide the quantum of general and special damages.…

…In a defence which was delivered on the 13th of February 1989 the defendant basically denied its liability to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint.…

…The defendants admit 80% liability and the question I have to decide is one of damages only. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was 42 years of age. He was and still is employed by KPA as a clerk.…

…The defendants have accepted their full liability for the negligence which resulted in the collision and so this case comes to me solely for assessment of damages to be paid to the plaintiff as compensation for the injuries…

…The parties have agreed that subject to the question of liability the quantum of general damages should be Kshs 7,500 for each plaintiff and Kshs 2,105 as special damages for both of them.…

…On this point I have derived substantial benefit from two books titled “The Law of Master and Servant” by Francis Raleigh Batt 4th Edition by George J Webber and “The Employers Liability” at Common Law” by John Munkman: The…

…To escape liability, the defendant would have to show that there was a probable cause of accident which does not connote negligence or that the explanation for the accident was consistent only with the absence of negligence…

…Four of the relevant agreed issues regarding liability are:- 1.…

…It is that “where the circumstances of the accident gives rise to the inference of negligence, then the defendant, in order to escape liability, has to show that there was a probable cause of the accident which does not connote…

…The issue as framed assumes that there was in fact an accident on the 9th June, 1988 as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint and that the only thing denied was liability for that accident.…