• This problem is based on occupiers liability.
• Beutex shop owed all its visitors a common duty of care.
• The shop owed Mrembo this duty but now that she was injured there in, she has a claim in damages against the owners of the shop.
• The owners of Beutex may argue that they had displayed a warning sign informing visitors not to use the wet floor but Mrembo ignored the same.
• This problem is based on the tort of negligence.
• The bus company owed Msafiri a legal duty of care but due to a breach of that duty i.e. the failure to maintain the bus, Msafiri was injured.
• From the date of the accident Msafiri has a cause of action against the bus company but did not do so until after five years.
• Msafiri has no enforceable action against the bus company as it is statute barred.
• Under the provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, actions based on the tort of negligence become statute barred after three years.