Search court decisions

…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.…

……………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.…

…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.…

…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.…

…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.…

…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.…

…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.…

…There was negligence on the part of the defendants although there has been no evidence to enable me to pinpoint the exact stage at which that negligence occurred as between the time the letter was sent out by the High Court…

…During that period the plaintiff lost the freedom which he should not have lost had there not been the negligence of the defendants.…

…Issue No.3: Was the break-in and theft caused due to breachof agreement and/or negligence on the part of the Defendant'ssecurity guards as alleged in paragraph 5 of the Plaint?…

…The issue of negligence ought to be proved and established.This was not. "This case has been very poorly made out."…

…The total award of Shs 168,770/= is then reduced to Shs 135,016/= on account of the plaintiff 20% contributory negligence.…

…The doctrine that if the plaintiff's act was the proximate cause of the damage the plaintiff can not recover is well established.Would this accident have not occured but for the negligence of the plaintiff?…

…In the defence statement the particulars of the defendant’s negligence as listed in the plaint are categorically denied.…

…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…

…were being driven by their respective drivers as the servants or agents of their respective owners in the course of their employment and/or within the scope of their authority and that the said accident was caused by the negligence…

…were being driven by their respective drivers as the servants or agents of their respective owners in the course of their employment and/or within the scope of their authority and that the said accident was caused by the negligence…

…plaintiff pleaded that vehicle registration No KPG 866 was at the time of the accident owned by the 1st defendant but was being driven by the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff further averred that the accident occurred due to the negligence…