Search court decisions

…Consequently, the second defendant denied vicarious liability. The parties then agreed on a statement of facts, and having called no evidence, put forward their arguments.…

…Securicor has challenged its vicarious liability.…

…Liability is denied by the defendants who, however. did not turn up to testify in the matter.…

…In this regard it is pertinent that I refer to s 107 (1) and (2) which provide as follows: 107 (1) Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he…

…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…

…In tortious liability it is enough for a plaintiff to establish that he act or omissions of the defendant, and in the case of vicarious liability of his servants or agents, created the situation which obliged him to take…

…I would allow the appeal on the issue of liability.…

…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?…

…“Without Prejudice” meant without admission of liability but here there was express admission of liability and a proposal for payment.…

…It preceded the defence which makes total denial of liability. There is however an express admission of the debt in the letter save for interest charged and there is a proposal for payment by specied instalments.…

…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.…

…Paragraph 7 states:- "Despite written demand having been made andnotice of intention to sue having been given,the Defendant has failed to admit liability orto pay damages to the Plaintiff."…

…The Plaintiff never mentioned such notice nor did he produce such documents by way of letters or notices written to the Defendant that they were requested to admit liability or be sued.…

…In my judgment, therefore, the issue of liability was already settled ( in favour of the plaintiff of course) by the time the judge embarked on the task of assessment of damages.…

…The plaintiff’s suit could not be dismissed as liability had been admitted. No injustice would have been occasioned to either party if the judge had proceeded along the lines I have suggested.…

…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.…

…After considering the evidence offered I find that the liability is on 100% basis. There being no contradictory evidence on loss of expectation of life the deceased was 51 at time of death and was due to retire at 55.…

…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.…

…Mr Magugu also deponed that he had not procured the finances and that he had also consulted a qualified quantity surveyor who advised him that his liability and that of Inns Ltd could not exceed Kshs 14m.…

…By the agreement of the parties, the learned judge was required to determine the liability, the quantum having been agreed. After the trial, the learned judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, hence this appeal.…

…The particulars of negligence contained in the plaint were denied by the written statement of defence and the suit went onto trial on the issue of liability as the learned counsel agreed on quantum of damages.…

…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…