[2025] KEHC 6911 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6911 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had proved its claim for US$ 65,504.98 and Ksh. 952,604 on a balance of probabilities, supported by documentary evidence and admissions by the defendant. The defendant's counterclaim for US$ 150,254 was dismissed for lack of evidence and particulars of fraud. The court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6911 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Basta & Sons Limited; Defendant: Compact Freight Systems Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Suit 123 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
DKN Magare
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Special Damages, Burden of Proof, Counterclaims, Interest Awards, Costs of Suit
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contracts Special Damages Burden of Proof Counterclaims Interest Awards Costs of Suit

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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basta & Sons Limited

Plaintiff

Compact Freight Systems Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved the sum of US$ 65,504.98 as due and owing.
  2. 2 Whether the repair sum of Ksh. 952,604 was proved.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant proved its counterclaim of US$ 150,254.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had proved its claim for US$ 65,504.98 and Ksh. 952,604 on a balance of probabilities, supported by documentary evidence and admissions by the defendant. The defendant's counterclaim for US$ 150,254 was dismissed for lack of evidence and particulars of fraud. The court held that special damages must be strictly pleaded and proved, and that oral contracts are enforceable if their terms are established. The defendant's arguments regarding industry custom and overcharging were unsupported by credible evidence. The court exercised its discretion to award interest from 18 May 2019, six years prior to judgment, due to the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for US$ 65,504.98.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for Ksh. 952,604 as repair costs.