[2019] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had proven, through LPOs, delivery notes, and invoices, that goods were supplied to the defendant. The defendant's defence was a bare denial without evidence to contradict delivery or contractual liability. Minor discrepancies in documentation were immaterial as the documents...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 2031 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benson Kang’ara t/a Pinkstone Enterprises; Defendant: Nairobi City County
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 502 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Goods Sold and Delivered, Breach of Contract, Local Purchase Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Benson Kang’ara t/a Pinkstone Enterprises
Plaintiff
Nairobi City County
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant as per the Local Purchase Orders issued.
- 2 Whether the defendant is liable to pay the claimed sum for goods supplied and delivered.
- 3 Whether discrepancies in the documents invalidate the plaintiff's claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had proven, through LPOs, delivery notes, and invoices, that goods were supplied to the defendant. The defendant's defence was a bare denial without evidence to contradict delivery or contractual liability. Minor discrepancies in documentation were immaterial as the documents corresponded in material particulars. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum, with interest and costs.
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for Kshs. 25,180,000.
- Interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
CORAM: D. S. MAJANJA
CIVIL CASE NO. 502 OF 2016
BETWEEN
BENSON KANG’ARA T/A PINKSTONE ENTERPRISES.......PLAINTIFF
AND
NAIROBI CITY COUNTY........................................................DEFENDANT
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant at its request. According to the Amended Plaint dated 27th July 2018, the plaintiffs claim is for Kshs. 25,180,000. 00 for supply and delivery of construction and assorted materials after Local Purchase Orders (LPO’s) were issued to it as follows:
PARTICULARS OF LOCAL PURCHASE ORDERS
L.P.O NO. ITEM SUPPLIED TOTAL COST
000976 250 Lamps 3,440,000
001883 Cruserun 4,900,000
001126 ½ Ballast 6,500,000
001330 - Hatari Tiles
- 280 Tones Ballast
- 280 tones sand
- 300 bags cement
- 200 bags of cement
- 100 bags of cement 6,825,000
2. In its statement of defence dated 14th February 2017, the defendant denied the claim put the plaintiff to strict proof.
3. Only the plaintiff testified at the hearing. He explained that he was prequalified by the defendant to supply material and was requested to make supplies from time to time by through the issue of LPOs. After each LPO was issued, he made the supplies which were evidenced by a delivery note and after such supply, he issued an invoice to claim payment. The plaintiff claimed that despite demand for payment, the defendant has no made good his claim.
4. The defendant did not call any witness but raised issues of discrepancies in the dates of the invoices and references in the delivery notes. On these issues, I have closely looked at the LPOs, delivery notes and invoices and the documents correspond to each other in material particulars. The LPO’s are issued by the defendant and signed by at least two officers while the delivery notes have acknowledgement of delivery of the goods. I am therefore satisfied that the errors pointed out by counsel for the defendant are minor and do not detract from the claim as a whole.
5. The defendant’s defence is a bare denial. The defendant did not give evidence that goods were not delivered or any other grounds which would invalidate the terms of the contracts as evidenced by the documents produced in evidence.
6. I therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for Kshs. 25,180,000. 00 together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full. The plaintiff shall have costs of the suit.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.
D. D. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Court Assistant; Mr M. Onyango
Ms Kiiru instructed by Kiiru and Partners Advocates for the plaintiff
Mr Nyakoe instructed by Momanyi and Associates Advocates for the defendant.