Search court decisions

…The defendants No.2 filed defence and stated that the negligence was attributed to the plaintiff.…

…I believe that the accident was not occasioned by the negligence of the defendants driver and or servants.…

…No defence was filed to refute the particulars of negligence alleged. The evidence adduced in the formal proof proceedings was solely that of the plaintiff.…

…No evidence was adduced on these 2 aspects of the particulars of negligence alleged in the plaint.…

…The plaintiff claimed that the assault was “caused and/or precipitated by the defendant’s negligence, in the management and control of its factory/premises”.…

…He proceeded to give particulars of such negligence in para 4 of his plaint.…

…In my judgment negligence has been established against the second defendant and I find him liable to the plaintiff.…

…Some suggestion has been canvassed on the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of motor vehicle Reg No KNN 997.…

…According to the plaintiff, the accident was not caused by the negligence of the driver. The accident was caused by the negligence and/or breach of duty by the defendant the employer.…

…Particulars of negligence and breach of common law duty of care have been given by the defendant in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the plaint.…

…The plaintiff alleged that it was due to the defendant’s negligence in the way its Leyland lorry was driven, which resulted in the vehicle being involved in an accident, thus causing the loss and damage complained of.…

…The plaintiff was insured, so the insurance met the loss, but that money has not got to be recovered from the defendant whose negligence resulted in the accident.…

…The plaintiff’s claim on the basis of negligence hinges on the allegation that DW 1, i.e the night attendant or receptionist unlawfully permitted Amrik Singh this was done against the plaintiff’s wishes.…

…There was therefore no negligence on the part of any of the defendant’s servants with regard to Amrik entrance to the plaintiff’s room and consequently his claim on negligence must fail.…

…In the final analysis I hold the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the negligence of the contractors (or the plaintiff’s employers) who were responsible for the excavation of the pit.…

…The Plaintiff’s negligence? I have to direct myself as to possible contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.…

…In the threeparagraph defence, the Defendant denied any negligence as alleged in the plaint and put the Plaintiff to the strick proof of her allegations.…

…Paragraph 4 alleges negligence on the part of the Defendant’s servant/agent and sets out the particulars of the alleged negligence.…

…The defence denied there was any negligence on their part. The defence stated that the accident was solely caused or substantially contributed by the Plaintiffs negligence.…

…seeking damages both special and general for injuries sustained in an accident while at his place of work with the defendant and which accident occurred as a result of the breach of contract and duty to him and also due to negligence…

…denying the allegations in the plaint, denied that there was breach of duty or contract between them, denied that an accident occurred as alleged, that if any accident occurred which is denied then the same was occasioned by negligence…

…part of the Defendant, or, if he relies on negligence, he must state the facts, which he alleges, constitute negligence.…

…As it stands, it neither alleges negligence in terms nor alleges facts which, if true, would of themselves constitute negligence; nor, if counsel for the plaintiff is right, would be bound at any time before the trial to…

…At the hearing of the suit the Plaintiff’s witnesses adduced evidence to the effect that c. the accident was due to the negligence of the 1st defendant who was the 2nd defendant’s servant. They were duly cross-examined.…

…The burden of proving that there was no negligence on the part of the driver was clearly his.…

……………DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff filed this suit on 25/10/83 to recover damages for injuries she sustained in a road accident allegedly due to the defendant’s negligence.…

…Those circumstances give rise to the inference of negligence.…

…The defendants filed a defence in which they denied the negligence allegedly attributed to lst defendant and the particulars of it given in the plaint.…

…In the alternative they averred that the said accident was solely caused or substantially contributed to by the negligence f the plaintiff’s servant and / or agent for which the plaintiff was vicariously liable.…

…The plaintiff pleads that the accident was caused by negligence of the tractor driver, or matatu driver or the negligence of both drivers and has set out the acts of negligence of each of the two drivers in para 7 of the…

…The owner and driver of the matatu on the other hand, in their amended defence deny negligence and attribute the accident to the negligence of the owner and driver of the tractor.…

…He said that although the delay was caused by an oversight on the part of the managing director of the appellant, this was not synonymous with deliberate negligence on his part.…

…That this act amounted to negligence on his part to warrant the dismissal of the application to set aside ex-parte judgment.…

…He brought this action against the Defendant claiming that the Defendant was negligent and that it was such negligence which occasioned the accident.…

…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.…

…Both defendants denied negligence but the second defendant also pleaded the Limitation of Actions Act (cap 22).…

…There was not in all her evidence anything to suggest, much less prove, negligence on the part of the bus driver and I must dismiss her claim against the first defendant with costs.…