State wins case against firm for damaging car

Makindu Law Courts has awarded the government Sh2.1 million for the destruction and loss of its vehicle involved in an accident in 2015.

The Attorney General (AG) on behalf of the Ministry of Information Communication and Technology (ICT) sued Mashline Agencies Limited (defendants) over an accident that occurred on March 29, 2015, near Salama along the Nairobi-Mombasa road.

Senior Principal Magistrate Yusuf Shikanda awarded the AG Sh2,178,633.

"In summary, I hold that the plaintiff (AG) has proven his case on a balance of probability as against the defendant. Consequently, special damages of Sh2,723,292 less a 20 per cent contribution of Sh544,658. Balance due to the plaintiff is Sh2,178,633.60," said Shikanda.

He also awarded costs of the suit and interest to the AG. Shikanda noted that the valuation and inspection report indicates the pre-accident value of the GK as Sh2,723,292.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  US govt agency seeks criminal probe of Trump legal foe
• 
  Ruto's leadership style draws heavy criticism over its autocratic traits
• 
  My life is at risk: Ex-minister sues Kanja, AG over security detail cut
• 
  Sheria House is rare enclave of law and order, and apparently love is in the air!

The magistrate said the report further indicates that there were no salvage components since the damage was quite extensive.

"There is no contrary evidence. The indication is that the motor vehicle could not be salvaged. It was totally written off. In the circumstances, I do not think it would be prudent to deduct the value at the time of assessment from the pre-accident value," said Shikanda.

The AG argued that the said trailer was carelessly and negligently driven by the driver onto the lane of motor vehicle registration number GKB 770F, causing the container to roll over onto the vehicle, thereby causing extensive damage.

However, the owner of the truck denied that it was driven carelessly and negligently and that the accident ever occurred.

He also denied that the AG was the registered owner of the GK vehicle and that it was not extensively damaged.

He argued that if the accident ever occurred, then the same was solely or substantially contributed to by the negligence of the driver of the GK vehicle.