Certificate of search is not conclusive proof of actual ownership of a motor vehicle

Superfoam Ltd & another v  Mbero

High Court at Meru

HCCA No 133 of 2002

J A Makau J

February 18, 2014

Reported by Andrew Halonyere

Issue

1. Whether a certificate of search from the Registrar of motor vehicle is final proof of ownership of a motor vehicle.
2. Whether the court erred in the principle of quantum by awarding general damages of 453,600 as per the vehicle assessor’s valuation report as opposed to the price of the motor vehicle of 250,000.

Ownership of motor vehicle - presumption of ownership - when presumption is rebuttable - whether certificate of search was conclusive proof of actual ownership of the motor vehicle - Traffic Act section 8

Traffic Act (Cap.403) section 8 provides:

 “The person in whose name a vehicle is registered shall, unless the contrary is proved be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle“

Held

1.  A certificate of search from the Registrar of motor vehicle would show who was the registered owner of the motor vehicle according to the records held by the Registrar of motor vehicle. That however was not conclusive proof of actual ownership of the motor vehicle as section 8 of the Traffic Act provided that the contrary could be proved. That was in recognition of the fact that often time’s vehicles change hands but the records are not amended.
2.  The trial Magistrate was correct in his finding that the deceased was the owner of the suit motor vehicle and his ownership was not disputed. The sale agreement amongst other documents having been produced showing the deceased as the purchaser of motor vehicle and there being no other party claiming ownership of the said vehicle and there being no response or defence filed denying the deceased ownership of the vehicle and the appellants having not offered any evidence to contradict the sale agreement and various documents showing the deceased as beneficial owner of the suit vehicle, the respondent had established on balance of probability that the motor vehicle was owned by her deceased husband.
3. Courts could not interfere with the parties freedom to contract on their own terms and if the vendors for example in the subject motor vehicle thought it wise to dispose of their vehicle at K.450,000/- or at less half its price, the court had no right to say they should not have done so.  The trial court was supposed to consider the pleaded specials and consider whether the same was specifically proved.  The trial court was bound by the assessor’s report which showed the assessed value of the vehicle and not otherwise.  The appellants should have challenged the assessor’s report but choose not to do so.  They could not do so in the appeal and there was no evidence contrary to the respondent’s assessor’s report.

Appeal dismissed.