[2025] KEHC 7233 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7233 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant breached the distributorship contract by ceasing supply to the respondent without issuing the required notice as stipulated in the agreement. The court rejected the appellant's argument that dishonoured cheques justified the termination, noting that the business relationship...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7233 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Almasi Botlers Ltd; Respondent: Paul Wathiga Kiboi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E094 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partially allowed; trial court judgment set aside; judgment entered for respondent for proven loss of business only; counterclaim by appellant allowed; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Special Damages, Specific Performance, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Special Damages Specific Performance Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Almasi Botlers Ltd

Appellant

Paul Wathiga Kiboi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of the distributorship contract by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved his claim for special damages on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in awarding special damages not strictly proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant breached the distributorship contract by ceasing supply to the respondent without issuing the required notice as stipulated in the agreement. The court rejected the appellant's argument that dishonoured cheques justified the termination, noting that the business relationship continued for months after the alleged breach and that the contract required notice before termination. However, the court held that the respondent failed to strictly prove claims for salaries and rent due to lack of supporting documentation such as payrolls and receipts. Only the claims for loss of business and profits were supported by invoices and receipts and thus allowed. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially allowed; trial court judgment set aside; judgment entered for respondent for proven loss of business only; counterclaim by appellant allowed; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 4,592,000 for loss of business.
  • Appellant awarded Kshs. 536,774.92 on the counterclaim.