Geoffrey Mureithi Juma v 1. Robert Kariuki 2. Peter Maina Kariuki 3. Mburu Gichuki 4. John Karoki Nyoike 5. Stephen Karanja T/A Wambe Transporters 6. Geoffrey K. Gichuki

Under section 107 of the Evidence Act the plaintiff ordinarily bears the burden of proving negligence. Where the circumstances of the accident themselves give rise to an inference of negligence - a bus pulling out of a parking lot and colliding with other vehicles - the doctrine raises a rebuttable presumption against the defendant. The defendant may escape liability by showing a probable cause that does not connote negligence, or that all reasonable care was used, as in the Barkway and Embu Public Road Services authorities.

The 3rd and 4th respondents, proprietor and driver of the bus, admitted the facts placing them at the scene but did not testify. Similarly the 1st and 2nd respondents were placed at the scene by the 2nd respondent's own defence blaming others. The Court held that each was under a duty to explain the absence of negligence once the presumption arose, and by electing not to testify they left the presumption unrebutted. Vicarious liability attached to the employer-proprietor.

Counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents demonstrated that motor vehicle KAB 053L was neither mentioned in the plaint nor in the police abstract report, which recorded only vehicles KAG 323H and KZP 763. The Court agreed it was unclear how that vehicle's owner and driver came to be sued, and upheld the High Court's dismissal of the claim against them.