Makonika Arrested

[Meria]

Four cars belonging to State House were burnt in a fire incident at a garage in Ruiru, Kiambu County.

The cars had been parked at the ministry of transport’s mechanical workshop near the General Service Unit’s Recce squad residence when the incident happened on Sunday afternoon.

Police said no one was injured in the incident.


The damaged cars were a Chevrolet saloon, Subaru Forester, a Toyota Corolla and a Peugeot 406.

Officers guarding the yard rushed there and with the help of locals managed to contain it.

Police who visited the scene said they established there were casual workers who were welding a site adjacent to the workshop, which ignited the fire.

Kiambu police boss Perminus Kioi said they are investigating the matter.

“We have men who were working at the site that is believed to have started the fire. They will face charges in court,” he said

The flying sparks from the welding works started the fire on dry grass near the place and spread to the cars parked in the yard. It spread fast consuming the yard.

Following the incident, four mechanics at the site were arrested.


Police said they will be charged with arson even as investigations go on.

Some of the presidential guards live in Ruiru’s Recce unit headquarters. They also take their cars to the yard for repairs.

State House has a fleet of cars that they use in moving and protecting the president and his family.

Police have since termed the incident normal but under investigation.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

Arson is malicious au aje @Karma_mama ? Criminal negligence perhaps.

 

[Tiiga Waana]

Arson is malicious au aje @Karma_mama ? Criminal negligence perhaps.

Arson is a confusing term as it includes, within itself, three major offences.
There is the straight forward Simple Arson where a Defendant has caused Criminal Damage by setting alight something owned or belonging to another.

There is also Reckless Arson whereby the Defendant is reckless, not about whether a fire will be started and spread but reckless about whether life will be endangered. (Only a dummy would wonder whether a fire would be started or spread by striking a match or welding next to petrol and dry grass).

Finally, there is the serious offence of Arson With Intent. The intent here does not refer to intention to set fire on something but Deliberate Intention to Endanger Life and Property (eg Burning ex and children alive, burning an alleged Witch alive, burning something for insurance claims etc etc).

Of the three, Arson with Intent is the most serious.
Please note that there is no allowance to ignorance as to whether a fire will spread or damage, as it is held obvious to all.

 

[Kasaman]

Arson is a confusing term as it includes, within itself, three major offences.
There is the straight forward Simple Arson where a Defendant has caused Criminal Damage by setting alight something owned or belonging to another.

There is also Reckless Arson whereby the Defendant is reckless, not about whether a fire will be started and spread but reckless about whether life will be endangered. (Only a dummy would wonder whether a fire would be started or spread by striking a match or welding next to petrol and dry grass).

Finally, there is the serious offence of Arson With Intent. The intent here does not refer to intention to set fire on something but Deliberate Intention to Endanger Life and Property (eg Burning ex and children alive, burning an alleged Witch alive, burning something for insurance claims etc etc).

Of the three, Arson with Intent is the most serious.
Please note that there is no allowance to ignorance as to whether a fire will spread or damage, as it is held obvious to all.

That's why the TVET program is here the jua kali mechanics must all go through these programs get certified by government and in the process have an opportunity to learn safety and other emerging skills in their areas !these includes car washing, street food vendors name it .... you can lay use the word h u s t l e r s

 

[Aviator]

Arson is a confusing term as it includes, within itself, three major offences.
There is the straight forward Simple Arson where a Defendant has caused Criminal Damage by setting alight something owned or belonging to another.

There is also Reckless Arson whereby the Defendant is reckless, not about whether a fire will be started and spread but reckless about whether life will be endangered. (Only a dummy would wonder whether a fire would be started or spread by striking a match or welding next to petrol and dry grass).

Finally, there is the serious offence of Arson With Intent. The intent here does not refer to intention to set fire on something but Deliberate Intention to Endanger Life and Property (eg Burning ex and children alive, burning an alleged Witch alive, burning something for insurance claims etc etc).

Of the three, Arson with Intent is the most serious.
Please note that there is no allowance to ignorance as to whether a fire will spread or damage, as it is held obvious to all.

In the case above, where there obviously wasn't any intention to burn some vehicles,does this still fall under criminal law ama it's a tort?
And if the garage guy had insurance, would it pay? Or if it was my car which burned and I had comprehensive insurance, would I be covered?

 

[Kasaman]

In the case above, where there obviously wasn't any intention to burn some vehicles,does this still fall under criminal law ama it's a tort?
And if the garage guy had insurance, would it pay? Or if it was my car which burned and I had comprehensive insurance, would I be covered?

Were your stolen livestock insured ?

 

[Aviator]

Were your stolen livestock insured ?

No. At that time, I was too naive.
Not any more.

 

[Tiiga Waana]

In the case above, where there obviously wasn't any intention to burn some vehicles,does this still fall under criminal law ama it's a tort?
And if the garage guy had insurance, would it pay? Or if it was my car which burned and I had comprehensive insurance, would I be covered?

If a Defendant does something which ignites or causes a fire, there is no intention needed to find them guilty of Arson. This is especially so for professionals who should have trained and known repercussions of fire.
The mere act of setting up a fire is intention enough to cause Arson. Why else would one start a fire?
The Garage should pay for damages caused by the Welder through the principle of vicarious liability as he is their employee.
Comprehensive Insurance often include fire damage. But Insurance company will want to know who caused the fire and will definitely ask you to report the arson to the police.

 

[Aviator]

If a Defendant does something which ignites or causes a fire, there is no intention needed to find them guilty of Arson. This is especially so for professionals who should have trained and known repercussions of fire.
The mere act of setting up a fire is intention enough to cause Arson. Why else would one start a fire?
The Garage should pay for damages caused by the Welder through the principle of vicarious liability as he is their employee.
Comprehensive Insurance often include fire damage. But Insurance company will want to know who caused the fire and will definitely ask you to report the arson to the police.

My fist part of the question wanted to establish if this is a crime or a tort.
Answer that, and justify

 

[Tiiga Waana]

My fist part of the question wanted to establish if this is a crime or a tort.
Answer that, and justify

Arson is a crime not a tort.
Starting a fire without any regard as to whether it will kill or cause massive damage is criminal. More so when one deliberately, wilful and on purpose use fire to kill.

Furthermore, @Aviator think of public policy implications of arson being a tort. One could burn a house with occupants locked inside and escape arrest, criminal charges and remand as tortfeasors often do.
On top of that, the deceased would have difficulties seeking after their justice if they were poor or didn’t survive.

 

[Aviator]

Arson is a crime not a tort.
Starting a fire without any regard as to whether it will kill or cause massive damage is criminal. More so when one deliberately, wilful and on purpose use fire to kill.

Furthermore, @Aviator think of public policy implications of arson being a tort. One could burn a house with occupants locked inside and escape arrest, criminal charges and remand as tortfeasors often do.
On top of that, the deceased would have difficulties seeking after their justice if they were poor or didn’t survive.

Well, in this case, the mechanics didn't start a fire.
By forces of nature that ensured grass has dried all around, a spark from their welding activities started the fire.
You can't say they did, only that they were not careful enough to prevent the spark from flying over the fence.
To me, they don't sound as criminals.

 

[Meria]

principle of vicarious liability

elaborate on this Senior Counsel.

 

[Tiiga Waana]

Well, in this case, the mechanics didn't start a fire.
By forces of nature that ensured grass has dried all around, a spark from their welding activities started the fire.
You can't say they did, only that they were not careful enough to prevent the spark from flying over the fence.
To me, they don't sound as criminals.

When one is a Professional in any one field, the Law expects them to carry it out in the highest standards possible.
They should be able to anticipate and mitigate hazards and dangers likely in their field.

This explains why if for example @Meria would be punished so severely for an accident that I (2 years car licence holder) would lightly get away with.

 

[Tiiga Waana]

elaborate on this Senior Counsel.

When somebody is in another’s employment, it is taken as a matter of course that they are carrying out the employer’s orders. The employer therefore has to shoulder and pay damages caused by the employee in the course of employment.

 

[Aviator]

When one is a Professional in any one field, the Law expects them to carry it out in the highest standards possible.
They should be able to anticipate and mitigate hazards and dangers likely in their field.

This explains why if for example @Meria would be punished so severely for an accident that I (2 years car licence holder) would lightly get away with.

Let's talk about Kenya, not randan

 

[Meria]

When somebody is in another’s employment, it is taken as a matter of course that they are carrying out the employer’s orders. The employer therefore has to shoulder and pay damages caused by the employee in the course of employment.

sande sana,
the law is an ass.
imagine nitume @QuadroK4000 na FRR akanichukulie hay Nanyuki in @Aviator s 100 acre farm, jamaa ikivut bangi iangushe kibyenga nyasi yote hadi ya neiba ichomeke. unataka kusema mimi ndiye nitaletewa bill? nakikosa kulipa itakua aje?

 

[Mwalimu-G]

sande sana,
the law is an ass.
imagine nitume @QuadroK4000 na FRR akanichukulie hay Nanyuki in @Aviator s 100 acre farm, jamaa ikivut bangi iangushe kibyenga nyasi yote hadi ya neiba ichomeke. unataka kusema mimi ndiye nitaletewa bill? nakikosa kulipa itakua aje?

Hospitali ikiajiri daktari careless aache makasi kwa tumbo ya mama wa CS ni hospital inalipa gharama. Ndiyo wanatakikana kuwa na indemnity insurance.

 

[Tiiga Waana]

sande sana,
the law is an ass.
imagine nitume @QuadroK4000 na FRR akanichukulie hay Nanyuki in @Aviator s 100 acre farm, jamaa ikivut bangi iangushe kibyenga nyasi yote hadi ya neiba ichomeke. unataka kusema mimi ndiye nitaletewa bill? nakikosa kulipa itakua aje?

The Court will expect you to make good (pay) all the losses occasioned by your Servant, @QuadroK4000.
If you won’t, a Judge will order a Bailiff to come to your house and cart away everything in there (underwear’s included) for auction.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

underwear’s included)

I see what you did there....

 

[Meria]

The Court will expect you to make good (pay) all the losses occasioned by your Servant, @QuadroK4000.
If you won’t, a Judge will order a Bailiff to come to your house and cart away everything in there (underwear’s included) for auction.

Ngai Mwathani?
what will the court do to @QuadroK4000 mabangi, hii tabia alitoa kwa matatu