Jambazi sneaked into Cassman Green‟s compound with the intention of breaking into his car and stealing a radio cassette. As he was walking towards the car park, he fill into a pit which Green had dug to construct a water reservoir. As a result Jambazi was seriously injured.
Jambazi now seeks your legal advice as to whether he can successfully sue Green. State the legal principles applicable to the above facts and advise Jambazi. (10 marks)
ANSWER
• The legal principle applicable in this case is whether an occupier owes a common duty of care to a trespasser.
• Under the Provisions of the Occupiers Liability Act, Cap 34, an occupier owes all invitees a common duty of care to ensure that they are reasonably safe in using the premises for purposes for which they are invited or permitted to be there.
• Under the Provisions of the Occupiers Liability Act, an occupier owes no common duty of care to trespassers. However, the occupier must not injure the trespasser.
• In this case, it is evident that Jambazi is a thief and that‟s why he sneaked into Cassman Greens compound. He is for all purposes a trespasser.
• My advise to Jambazi is that he has no actionable claim against Cassman Green for the injuries as Cassman Green owes him no common duty of care. He has no one to blame. My advise is consistent with the provisions of the Occupiers Liability Act
Related Posts
-
-
-
-
-
Mr. A, a car dealer sells second hand cars. On Thursday last week, he placed an advertisement in a daily newspaper which stated the following: “Once in a lifetime, opportunity to own a one year old Nissan Caravan, low mileage, Kshs.500,000 cash. The offer is valid for only one day and the car will go to the first person who accepts it.” When Mr. B saw the advertisement, he immediately posted a letter of acceptance of Mr. A‟s offer. Mrs. C also saw the advertisement and came to inspect the car after which Mrs. C offered Mr. A a cheque of Kshs. 500,000. However, Mr. A refused to accept the cheque stating that another potential buyer had already offered to buy the car. Later in the day Ms D, another interested buyer telephoned Mr. A informing him that she was willing to buy the car but asked Mr. A if he would keep the offer open until she could go to her bank to obtain a loan. Mr. A accepted the request. However later, in the day, Mr. E, another potential buyer said that he would pay Sh. 600,000 in cash for the car. Mr. A agreed to sell the car to Mr. E. On Monday morning, Mr. A received Mr. B‟s letter of acceptance. At the same time, Mr. E returned to complete the transaction. However, in the afternoon Mr. E telephoned Mr. A to say that he had second thoughts and he no longer wished to purchase the car. Citing relevant decided cases where applicable, explain the legal principles in the case in relation to: (a) Mr. A (4 marks) (b) Mr. B (4 marks) (c) Mrs. C (4 marks) (d) Ms. D (4 marks) (e) Mr. E (4 marks)
