Search court decisions

…It is his stand that since the evidence is not challenged liability is established.…

…On the assessment of evidence on liability I find that the suit is not contested and in terms of Order 6 rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules the defendant is deemed to have admitted the allegations of the plaintiff save…

…citing 4 grounds of appeal namely that the learned senior Resident Magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the plaintiff contributed to the said accident and thereby arrived at an erroneous decision on liability…

…I find that liability was well established as found by the trial magistrate that there is no denial that the respondent was an employee of the appellant and he was injured on duty and was paid workmans compensation.…

…The appellant at first filed a defence denying liability to the respondent but when the case came up for hearing before the High Court (Aganyanya, J) on the 20th February, 1989, a consent order was entered and the terms of…

…that order were that judgment on liability was entered for the respondent and four medical reports were put in evidence without calling the doctors who had made them.…

…particular instance, not only the particulars had already been supplied when the order dismissing the plaintiff’s suit was made, the defendant had also filed its defence about three months previously which was merely a denial of liability…

…A defence was filed by the defendant/respondent through his firm of advocates Mbugua and Mbugua in which liability was actually denied saying that the accident occurred through inevitable circumstances or as an act of God…

…in working order it should have been returned to the plaintiff immediately instead of keeping it for more than two years, and then returning it after having it repaired which was an acceptance of both the obligation and liability…

…in working order it should have been returned to the plaintiff immediately instead of keeping it for more than two years, and then returning it after having it repaired which was an acceptance of both the obligation and liability…

…In a defence filed in this Court on 9th November, 1989 the defendant denied liability and counter-claimed that the plaintiff do pay Kshs 103,624.45 being the balance of the sum due and owing and in connection with the chattel…

…On being served, the defendants filed a defence denying liability and counter claimed for damages for detention of its vehicle from 8th June, 1995 until date of release.…

…On being served, the defendants filed a defence denying liability and counter claimed for damages for detention of its vehicle from 8th June, 1995 until date of release.…