Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KECA 1311 (KLR)

Mohamed v Remji (Civil Appeal E117 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1311 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
20 September 2024
3,217 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a sudden tyre burst can excuse a driver from blame in a road accident, so the injured pedestrian's claim failed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a second appeal by Mesaidi Juma Mwambuyu Mohamed against the High Court at Mombasa (Chepkwony, J.), which on 24th June 2021 had dismissed her first appeal from the Magistrate's Court at Msambweni. The magistrate had dismissed her claim for general and special damages arising from a road traffic accident in which she was knocked down off the Likoni-Ukunda Road by the respondent's vehicle, which had suffered a sudden left rear tyre burst. The Court of Appeal (Gatembu Kairu, Laibuta and Odunga, JJ.A) restated that on a second appeal it is confined to questions of law and must accept concurrent findings of fact unless they are unsupported by the evidence or perverse. It accepted that the circumstances of the accident raised a rebuttable presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur, but held that the respondent rebutted the presumption: an inspection report showed no pre-accident defects, there was no evidence of overspeeding, and the driver braked, hooted and swerved in a sudden emergency. The Court accordingly found no fault in the lower courts' reliance on Bellita Kennedy v Angelina Kitili Musyoka and Kago v Njenga. On the unpleaded-tyre-burst complaint, the Court held that particulars were supplied in the driver's witness statement filed long before trial, giving the appellant ample notice and causing no prejudice. The complaint on quantum also failed, the High Court having concurred with the trial court's in-event-of-liability assessment. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of second appeals in the Court of Appeal

Holding

The Court is confined to questions of law and must resist delving into concurrent findings of fact absent error or perversity.

Reasoning

The Court restated the established principle, drawing on Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo and Stephen Muriungi v Republic, that a second appellate court must accept the findings of fact of the lower courts and may only intervene where matters that should not have been considered were considered, matters that should have been considered were omitted, or the entire decision is perverse.

p. 4
02

Application and rebuttal of res ipsa loquitur

Holding

Although the circumstances of the accident raised a rebuttable presumption of negligence, the respondent rebutted it by demonstrating a sudden tyre burst, a defect-free vehicle, no speeding, and the driver's reasonable efforts to control the vehicle.

Reasoning

The Court accepted that where a vehicle leaves the road and injures a pedestrian off the road, negligence would ordinarily be inferred absent a plausible explanation. However, an inspection report showed no pre-accident defects, there was no evidence of overspeeding, and the driver braked, hooted and swerved in a sudden emergency. The trial magistrate's assessment of the driver's candour was supported by the evidence, and the courts below correctly relied on Bellita Kennedy and Kago v Njenga.

p. 5
03

Whether the decision was based on unpleaded matter (tyre burst)

Holding

The defence plea of supervening unforeseeable circumstances beyond the driver's control, together with the driver's witness statement filed before trial giving particulars of the tyre burst, gave the appellant ample notice; no prejudice was suffered.

Reasoning

Order 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires pleadings to contain only material facts, not evidence. Although particulars of the supervening circumstances would have been useful in the defence, they were supplied long before trial in the driver's witness statement. Pleadings need only give the opposing party fair notice; since no prejudice was shown, the omission to plead tyre burst specifically was not fatal.

p. 6
04

Whether the High Court failed to deal with quantum of damages

Holding

The complaint was not borne out by the record; the High Court reviewed and concurred with the trial court's assessment of the awards that would have been granted had liability been established.

Reasoning

The trial magistrate had, despite dismissing the claim on liability, considered rival submissions on quantum and rendered an opinion on the awards she would have granted. The High Court reviewed the same and concurred. There was therefore no merit in the appellant's complaint that damages were not addressed.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal is confined to questions of law and must accept concurrent findings of fact unless they are not based on the evidence or the decision is perverse.
  • Where res ipsa loquitur applies, the defendant can escape liability by showing either absence of negligence, a probable cause not connoting negligence, or circumstances beyond his control.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs
On appeal from
High Court at Mombasa
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal on questions of law only, under the Court's appellate jurisdiction (statute not specified in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mohamed v Remji (Civil Appeal E117 of 2021) [2024] KECA 1311 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1311/eng@2024-09-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.