CIVIL APPEAL NO 92 OF 1998

TRAFFIC LAW - ownership of motor vehicle- where one alleges that he isn’t the owner of the motor vehicle involved in a accident- where he alleges that he has transferred the same to a new owner- where the vehicle hasn’t been registered under the new owner- where he hasn’t informed the registrar of motor vehicle of the new ownership - whether he should be presumed to still be the owner of the motor vehicle.

DAMAGES- discretion - where High court exercised discretion and awarded damages- where the court of appeal thinks that the amount awarded isn’t so inordinately high so as to warrant interference- whether the court should interfere with the quantum of damages awarded.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

The respondent herein sued the appellant in the High Court for damages as a result of injuries sustained after a motor vehicle ran over him on 20^th June 1987.This was after being told that the vehicle that ran over him was reg. number KLD 077. On 25^th Jan 1988, he was told by thika police station that the owner of the motor vehicle reg. no KLD 077 that ran over him belonged to the appellant herein. .  The police also told the respondent that the vehicle was insured by M/s Intra-Africa Assurance Company Limited. He also further inquired with the registrar of motor vehicles on14th April, 1988, as to the owner of the said vehicle and the registrar confirmed the same, namely that the owner of the vehicle was Francis Nzioka Ngao.

The High court looked at the facts of the case and further section 9(2) of the Traffic Act which provides that if a person is registered as an owner of a vehicle and he transfers that ownership, he must inform the Registrar of motor vehicles within seven days of the change of ownership.

The High court found out that the owner never informed the registrar of the transfer despite the fact that the owner claimed he had transferred the same to another person.

On this basis the High Court reached a conclusion that the owner of the motor vehicle was Francis Nzioka Ngao, and awarded damages to the tune of Kshs. 150,000 against him.

The respondent proceeded to file an appeal at the court of appeal against the finding of the High Court as to the ownership of the said motor vehicle, and the damages awarded by the high court.         

HELD

1. Court of Appeal thinks that from the facts the learned Judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant had not sold the vehicle as he alleged, or at any rate the learned Judge was entitled to say that the appellant had not proved that he was not owner of the vehicle contrary to the books of the Registrar of motor vehicles. 
2. Court of Appeal has taken into account the injuries sustained by the respondent; perhaps if it had been sitting in the High Court, it might have awarded to the respondent a somewhat lesser figure than that awarded by the Judge.  But that is not the basis upon which an appellate court would interfere with a judge's exercise of discretion in the area of assessment of damages.  The Judge exercised discretion and the court of appeal is not entitled to replace his discretion with its own. The court of appeal thinks the damages awarded are not so inordinately high as to warrant the court of appeal’s interfering.

Appeal dismissed