Wakilii

Khambi and Another v Mahithi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1968)

East African Court of Appeal · [1968] EACA 18 · 1968 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court judgment concerning apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors
Decision
Apportionment of liability by trial judge upheld

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 appeal against the apportionment of liability between joint tortfeasors. The Court held that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's apportionment of liability according to fault save in exceptional cases where there is an error in principle or the apportionment is manifestly erroneous. The Court found no error in the trial judge's apportionment of 75% blame to the parked lorry and 25% to the Fiat lorry.

Outcome

Apportionment of liability by trial judge upheld

Facts

On 1 March 1966 at about 8 p.m., a Mercedes Benz travelling from Nairobi to Mombasa approached a Fiat lorry with trailer travelling in the opposite direction. A lorry belonging to the second appellant was parked on the tarmac facing Nairobi on the same road. The parked lorry had neither red tail lights nor rear reflectors and was parked wholly or almost wholly on the tarmac although it could have been parked on the verge. As the Mercedes and Fiat lorry approached each other, the Fiat lorry pulled over to its offside to overtake the parked lorry. In doing so, the Fiat lorry scraped the parked lorry and collided with the Mercedes. The Fiat lorry caught fire and the Mercedes became a total loss. The trial judge held both lorry drivers negligent and apportioned blame at 75% to the parked lorry and 25% to the Fiat lorry.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in principle in apportioning blame 75% to the parked lorry and 25% to the Fiat lorry.
  2. Whether the apportionment of liability was manifestly erroneous.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Joint Tortfeasors — Apportionment of Liability — Appellate Intervention
An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's apportionment of liability according to fault between joint tortfeasors save in exceptional cases where there is an error in principle or the apportionment is manifestly erroneous.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Standard of Review — Apportionment of Liability
An appellate court will not substitute its own apportionment of liability for that made by the trial judge unless satisfied that the trial judge failed to give effect to some material fact or failed to take into account some material consideration.

Cases cited (3)

  • Brown v Thompson (1968) 2 All ER 708
  • British Fame (Owners) v MacGregor (Owners) (1943) 1 All ER 33
  • Shariff v Sethna [1963] EA 235

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Khambi and Another v Mahithi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1968) [1968] EACA 18 (30 October 1968)
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.