Wakilii

Keshavji v Rowe (C.A. 29-1929.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1929] EACA 119 · 1929 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Resident Magistrate of Nairobi dismissing plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim on grounds of contributory negligence
Decision
Both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim remained dismissed as originally decided by the Resident Magistrate

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that where a plaintiff had a lookout and persisted in a course of action that led to a collision, despite being warned of the risk, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Although the defendant had no proper lookout due to side curtains, the plaintiff's negligence directly contributed to the accident such that but for the plaintiff's want of ordinary care the misfortune would not have occurred.

Outcome

Both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim remained dismissed as originally decided by the Resident Magistrate

Facts

On 7 April 1929 at approximately 2:00 a.m., a motor vehicle collision occurred on Government Road at its intersection with Sixth Avenue in Nairobi. The defendant was driving with side curtains down such that he could not maintain a proper lookout. He was following another vehicle driven by Dr. Tonkings. The plaintiff's car was coming down Sixth Avenue intending to cross into Government Road toward the Railway Station. A passenger in the plaintiff's car, who was also a taxi driver, warned the plaintiff that the defendant's car was approaching. The passenger initially said they could pass before the defendant's car arrived, but then advised the plaintiff to stop, noting there was a risk as it was raining hard. The plaintiff did not stop. Dr. Tonkings stated he had to accelerate to avoid being struck by the plaintiff's car. The two vehicles collided, damaging both. The plaintiff sued for negligence and the defendant counterclaimed.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence that barred recovery for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.
  2. Whether the defendant's negligence in failing to maintain a proper lookout entitled the plaintiff to recover despite the plaintiff's own negligence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Contributory Negligence — Bar to Recovery
A plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages if the injury was occasioned by the negligence of both parties, or if the plaintiff by his own negligence directly contributed to the accident such that but for that negligence the misfortune would not have happened.
Contributory Negligence — Lookout and Persistence in Dangerous Course
Where a defendant has no lookout but the plaintiff has a lookout and, having that lookout, persists in a course of action that inflicts injury, the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence notwithstanding the defendant's own negligence in failing to maintain a lookout.
Contributory Negligence — Test for Direct Contribution
The proper test for contributory negligence is whether the plaintiff so far contributed to the misfortune by his own negligence or want of ordinary care and caution that, but for such negligence or want of care on his part, the misfortune would not have happened.

Cases cited (1)

  • Tuff v Warman (1858) 141 ER 231

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Keshavji v Rowe (C.A. 29-1929.) [1929] EACA 119 (1 January 1929)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.