Search court decisions

…In Henderson v Henry E Jenkins & Sons [1970] AC 282 at 301 Lord Pearson at letter D stated: “In an action for negligence the plaintiff must allege, and has the burden of proving, that the accident was caused by negligence…

…What sort of negligence could there be in overtaking? There is no evidence to support contributory negligence either.…

…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.…

…He expressly found that the respondent was not guilty of any contributory negligence.…

…He thus answered in specle the only allegation of negligence which were really particular to this case, as opposed to the generalities to which I have just referred.…

……………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.…

…These follow the usual, stereotyped, particulars of negligence which can be obtained from any book on pleadings and civil procedure.…

…He is entitled, and indeed bound, if he is not to be guilty of any contributory negligence, to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to himself. In Jones v Boyce [1816] 171 ER VOL.…

…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.…

…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…

…Strangely enough, counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the Club.…

…The defendant’s failure to supply a helmet after evidence of the previous incident of attack is an act of continued negligence.…

…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.…

…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.…

…If so, the defendant could have joined the rider as a party to claim contributory negligence and indemnity. However, he has not done so.…

…free education and maintenance (4) Loss of salary as a cadet (5) Maintenance and education by his father Mr Mohamed submits that these are the losses which plaintiff has suffered as a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence…

…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."…

…If the appellant was paid compensation by the complainant then this is an indication of negligence on the part of the complainant. The learned senior state counsel (Mr Nyagah) did not seek to support the conviction.…

…He prayed for damages, costs jointly and severally, including loss of earning prospects.2 A joint defence was filed on 15.6.97, on their part the defendants averred that they werenot liable in negligence but that the plaintiff…

…MAHITAI &20 ANOTHER [1969] E.A.71 were cited on apportionment of negligence in situations as this.…

…conflicting contentions of both sides, the learned judge delivered himself as follows: “Having already analysed the material events which culminated in the sale of the vehicle it is clear that the person who would be guilty of negligence…

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