JUDGMENT
LAW VP
On September 5, 1970, a motor car belonging to the Diocese of Meru (“the plaintiff”) collided with the back of a stationary lorry owned by the appellant firm (“the defendant”). The plaintiff sued the defendant for Kshs 17,636 representing the damage done to its car. By paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the collision occurred by reason of the negligence of the defendant, the main complaint being that the lorry had been left on the main road in the dark without lights. By its defence, the defendant denied negligence and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff’s driver.
At the outset of the trial, Mr Sharma for the defendant submitted that the suit was incompetent and should be dismissed as a firm cannot drive and the plaint contained no allegation that the defendant’s liability was vicarious, arising out of the negligence of a servant or agent. Counsel for the plaintiff refused to amend his plaint, contending that there was no need for an …