https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7343

Cherangani Hills Limited v County Assembly of Trans Nzoia (Civil Case 2 of 2017) [2026] KEHC 7343 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7343 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kitale Civil Case 2 of 2017 RK Limo, J May 29, 2026 Between Cherangani Hills Limited Plaintiff and County Assembly Of Trans Nzoia Defendant Judgment 1.Cherangani Hills Limited, the plaintiff herein has brought this suit against the County Government of Trans-Nzoia, the defendant herein for breach of contract. It claims that the defendant awarded it Tenders to undertake maintenance works on various roads at Matisi and Kinyoro Wards within Trans Nzoia County amounting to Kshs.26,815,800/- and upon completion of the work, the defendant failed to meet its part of the obligation. 2.The defendant on its part denies awarding the plaintiff Tenders to undertake the said works and denies that the defendant rendered the said services. 3.The plaintiff’s caseThe plaintiff claims that the defendant awarded it Tenders numbers CGTN/CTC/100/2013-2014 AND CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 to undertake maintenance of various roads at Matisi and Kinyoro Wards within Trans-Nzoia. 4.Vipul Ratilal Dohia (PW1), a director to the plaintiff stated that it tendered for road works from the defendant and the defendant awarded the plaintiff several Tenders and Contracts to construct murram roads on various roads within Trans-Nzoia County and produced the following documents to support its case namely;a.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 dated 7/4/2014 for maintenance of D28-Ben Kipcho Kisawai River-Road length-2KM- PExhibit 1(a)b.Contract Agreement dated 29/4/2014 with respect to maintenance of Sangwai Junction-Dam-Teltet-worth Kshs.3,829,000/- - PExhibit 1(b)c.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 dated 7/4/2014-Maintenance Nasianda Coffee-Factory Junction-Saboti Forest-Road length-2KM- PExhibit 2(a)d.Contract Agreement dated 29/4/2014 between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to road maintenance of Nasianda-Coffee -Factory Junction worth Kshs.1,396,500/- -PExhibit 2(b).e.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 -maintenance of Milembe Primary- Kisawai Bridge Junction-Kinyoro Ward- Road length 2.5KM- PExhibit 3(a)f.Contract Agreement dated 29/4/2014 in respect to Road maintenance Milembe Primary School-Kisawai Bridge Junction- contract price Kshs.2,006,750/- - PExhibit 3(b).g.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014- maintenance of Kistoi Academy-Kandie-Cheptumbelio Junction- Road length-1KM- PExhibit 4(a).h.Contract Agreement with respect to Milembe Primary-Kisawai Bridge Junction contract sum Kshs.2,006,750/- PExhibit 4(b).i.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246 2013-2014 maintenance-Major Cherambus Junction-Elizabeth Primary School-Road length-1KM- PExhibit 5(a).j.Contract Agreement dated 9/4/2014 in respect to road maintenance – Major Cherambus Junction-Elizabeth Primary School contract price Kshs.773,150/- - PExhibit 5(b).k.Tender No CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014- Road length 6KM. maintenance D286-Ole Ndiema Junction-Nasianda Teltet Junction – Pexhibit 6(a).l.Contract Agreement dated 29/4/2014 in regard to Road maintenance D286-Ole Ndiema Junction -Nasianda Teltet Junction-contract price Kshs.2,992,000/- PExhibit6(b).m.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 dated 7/4/2014- For maintenance Kandie Junction-Cheptumbelio Primary Road length 6.4KM- PExhibit 7(b).n.Contract Agreement dated 29/4/2014 with respect to Road maintenance –Kandie Junction-Cheptumbelio Primary. Contract price Kshs.3,360,600/- PExhibit 7(a).o.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 for maintenance Sangwai Junction-D9-Teltet- Nasianda Junction-PExhibit 8(a).p.Contract Agreement dated 29/4/2014 in respect to road maintenance of D286-Ben Kipcho Kisawai-River. Contract sum Kshs.1,446,000/- PExhibit 8(b).q.Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014- Road maintenance-D286-Kisawai Market-Cheptoboit. Length 4KM- PExhibit 9(a).r.Contract Agreement with respect to Road maintenance D286-Kisawai Market-Cheptoboit. Contract sum Kshs.1,968,000/- PExhibit 9(b).s.Tender dated 7/4/2014 – Pexhibit 10(a).t.Contract Agreement in regard to Road maintenance – Kistoi Academy-Cheptumbelio Junction contract sum – Kshs.1,367,000/- - PExhbit10(b). 5.The plaintiff’s director further tenders several Local Service Orders from the defendant as follows;a.LSO dated 23/5/2014 of Kshs.2,016,750/- PExhibit 11(a).b.LSO dated 23/5/2014 for Road maintenance –Major Cherambus Junction-Elizabeth Primary School Kshs.1,059,000/- PExhibit11(b).c.LSO dated 23/5/2014 for Road D286-Mima Academy-Kisawai Bridge-Endebess Junction – Kshs.1,266,500/- PExhibit 11(c).d.LSO dated 23/5/2014 of Kshs.2,370,600/- PExhibit 11(d).e.LSO dated 23/5/2014 Routine work on Kandie Junction-Cheptumbeilio Primary – Kshs.3,370,680/- PExhibit 11(d).f.LSO dated 23/5/2014 for Routine work on D286 – Kisawai Market-Cheptobot- Kshs.1,644,000/- PExhibit 11(e).g.LSO dated 4/2/24 for hire of motor Grader – Kshs.2,328,000/- PExhibit 11(f).h.LSO dated 24/1/2014 for Routine road maintenance in Matisi road – Kshs.5,348,800/- PExhibit 11(g).i.LSO dated 23/5/2014 for road maintenance for D286 –Ole Ndiema Junction-Nasianda –Kshs.2,992,000/- PExhibit 11(h).j.LSO dated 29/5/2014 Routine road maintenance D286-Ben Kipcho-Kisawai River- Kshs.1,230,500/- PExhibit 11(i).k.LSO dated 29/5/2014 Road maintenance –Nasianda Coffee Factory Junction-Saboti Forest- Kshs.1,406,500/- PExhibit 11(j).l.LSO dated 29/5/2014 Road maintenance Sangwai Junction-Dam Teltet-Nasianda Junction– Kshs.3,835,000/- PExhibit 11(k). 6.The plaintiff’s witness (PW1) further told this court that he also wished to rely on the following supplementary documents which he tendered as follows;i.Letter of Acceptance from the defendant dated 1/10/2013, A Pre-qualification for routine maintenance of rural access roads. Tender No.CGTN/55/2013-13-PExhibit 12ii.Tender No.CGTN/CTC/54/2013/14 Pre-qualification for Civil and Building Contracts, Renovation Works for Government Offices and Residential Houses dated 1/10/2013- PExhibit 13. 7.He stated that the above 2 letters were a confirmation that the plaintiff had been pre-qualified to tender for services to the defendant. 8.He stated that the plaintiff issued the following invoices requesting for payment.a.Invoice No.80446/6 dated 24/2/2014 Routine maintenance of roads in Matisi Ward – Kshs.5,348,800/- PExhibit 14(a).b.Invoice No.81202 Road maintenance Milembe Primary-Kisawai Bridge Junction- Kshs.2,006,750/- - PExhibit 14(b).c.Invoice No.81203 Road maintenance –Kisawai Market-Cheptoboit- Kshs.1,968,000- PExhibit 14(c).d.Invoice No.81204 Road maintenance –Kandie Junction-Cheptumbelio Primary School. Tender CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014- Kshs.3,360,600.01/- - PExhibit 14(d).e.Invoice No.81205 dated 29/4/2014 maintenance D286- Ben Kipcho Kisawai River – Kshs.1,446,000/- PExhibit 14(e).f.Invoice No.81206 dated 29/4/2014-Ole Ndiema Junction-Nasianda Teltet Junction-Kshs.2,991,999.99/- PExhibit 14(f).g.Invoice No.81207 dated 29/4/2014 Road maintenance – Nasianda Coffee- Factory Junction-Saboti Forest- Kshs.1,396,500/- PExhibit 14(g).h.Invoice No.81211 dated 29/4/2014 Road maintenance – Sangwai JunctionDam -Teltet –Nasianda Junction - Kshs.3,829,000/- PExhibit 14(h).i.Invoice No.81213 dated 29/4/2014 Road maintenance Kistoi Academy-Kandie Cheptumbelio – Kshs.1,367,000 – Pexhibit 14(i).j.Invoice No.81214 dated 29/4/2014 Road maintenance Major Cherambus Junction-Elizabeth Primary School- Kshs.773,150 – Pexhibit 14(j). 9.He stated that there was a Task Force formed in 2015 by the defendant to confirm or audit the roads done. He tendered Inspection Score Sheet as PExhibit 15. 10.He stated the above documents indicated that the contracts given to the plaintiff were done. 11.He added that there was also an Ad-Hoc Committee formed by the County Assembly of Trans-Nzoia to establish if the claims by contractors were genuine. He tendered the findings of Ad-Hoc Committee on Roads as PExhibit 16. 12.He stated that the Ad-Hoc Committee Report above is acknowledged by the defendant who has exhibited the same at page 70 of their list of documents. 13.According to the plaintiff the Ad-Hoc Committee recommended payments by the defendant to the plaintiff because of the work done. He claimed that the total work was done and the plaintiff claimed Kshs.26,815,800/- plus costs. 14.He stated under cross-examination that the plaintiff’s company was awarded between 27 and 29 contracts by the defendant but he has not been paid. 15.He insisted that of the 25 to 27 projects he completed 15 to 16 projects. That some contracts included heavy bush clearing, heavy grading, gravel patching and culvert ditch cleaning. 16.He further stated that all contracts he got bore the same Tender No.246. He stated that he entered into agreements with the defendant and that all the agreements are signed and stamped with a rubber stamp from the County. 17.He stated that he signed the Letter of Offer on 23/4/2014 while the contracts were signed by defendant on 9/6/2014. 18.He conceded that at the time there were a lot of illegal activities going on with people claiming to be contracted without pre-qualification. That the issue raised red flags forcing the defendant to stop all payments pending verification. He however stated that his company the plaintiff herein got a clean bill of health after verification but that even after verification process the defendant kept promising to pay but in vain. 19.He stated that the work his company did was inspected but the Certificate of Completion was not issued. He maintained that the work was done properly and there were no discrepancies on the papers the company presented for payment. 20.He stated that the plaintiff notified the defendant about the pending bills through a demand letter dated 3/11/2015. 21.He clarified that he signed Contract Agreement on behalf of the plaintiff and distanced himself from the blank spaces appearing on the Contract Agreements stating that he was not the author or responsible for drawing the agreements. He stated that he signed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant also signed its part. He further clarified that it was the defendant who gave the reference No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014. 22.Henry Wanyama Membo (PW2), the 2nd plaintiff’s witness testified that he was employed by the plaintiff as an accountant and confirmed that he was fully conversant with the plaintiff’s claim herein. That the plaintiff through its advocate did a demand letter dated 3/11/2015 and another reminder dated 19/1/2016. He stated that as an accountant he maintained all financial records of the plaintiff. 23.He stated that the plaintiff company was awarded several Tenders by the defendant after its director tendered for the same and that as a result of the work done, the plaintiff claimed a total of Kshs.26,815,800/- from the defendant. 24.Aggrey Kidiavai (PW3) the counsel who acted for the plaintiff testified that he was instructed by the plaintiff to do a demand letter dated 3/11/2015 demanding Kshs.26,815,800/- from the defendant. He tendered the letter as PExhibit17. He stated that he did receive a response from the defendant vide a letter dated 25/11/2015 which he tendered as PExhibit 18. 25.He stated that the letter requested him to prevail upon his client, the plaintiff to await a verification exercise but by 19/1/2016 they had not received any response and he was instructed to do another letter. That he did a second demand letter dated 19/1/2016 asking for the same payments. He tendered the 2nd demand letter as PExhibit 19 which he stated was duly received by the defendant. 26.Benson Musaket Masai (PW4) testified that he was engaged by the plaintiff to supervise road maintenance work it was carrying out between 2013 and 2014. He stated that the terms of engagement were verbal and that he was to be paid by the plaintiff after the plaintiff had being paid for the contracted work by the defendant. He stated that he supervised road works at Kinyoro Ward and that it was a term of their agreement that when the plaintiff would get paid, he would be paid 1% of the contracted sum. 27.The defence case.The defendant on the other hand has denied the plaintiff’s claim through its defence, the evidence tendered and via final written submissions. 28.It pleads that the plaintiff never delivered motor graders to them or render any of the services claimed in the plaint. The defendant avers that there was no valid procurement of the plaintiff as a contractor. The other basis for denial are listed as follows;a.That there was no valid tender evaluation and processing.b.That the plaintiff was fraudulently registered as a contractor of the defendant in breach of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act, the Public Officers Ethics Act and the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act.c.That the plaintiff’s directors were ineligible to tender for goods and services with the defendant.d.That the plaintiff engaged in corrupt, coercive, obstructive, collusive or fraudulent practice and conflict of interests in the procurement proceedings contrary to section 66(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act.e.That the plaintiff was illegally registered and procured without due process.f.That the plaintiff was not issued with site instructions.g.That the alleged work done was not measured and inspected.h.That the plaintiff did not render any service or work and if it did, the same was sub-standard and the defendant is restrained by law from payments for sub-standard or defective goods. 29.The defendant on the above basis denies owing the plaintiff the sums claimed. The defendant takes the position that it does not owe the plaintiff any money and that in the alternative the plaintiff is not eligible for any payment from them because of shoddy and sub-standard work. 30.The defendant alleges that investigations were carried out in respect to the plaintiff’s claim and that the audit report revealed a lot of irregularities and fraud on the part of the contractors in collusion with its former employees in a conspiracy to defraud public funds. 31.It denies owing the plaintiff Kshs.26,815,800/- contending that the plaintiff’s suit is untenable and fatally defective. 32.The defendant called one witness Mr Pius Munialo (DW1) to defend its position. He reiterated the contents of the defence filed where he mainly faults the plaintiff’s claim on grounds of illegality and fraud. He stated that the audit carried out did not recommend any payment to the plaintiff for any work done. He denied that the defendant owes the plaintiff Kshs.26,815,800/-He relied on a bundle of documents which he tendered as follows;i.A Special Audit by Auditor General on Road works in Trans-Nzoia -Dexhibit 1.ii.A report of Public Accounts and Investment Committee on Road works Trans-Nzoia -DExhbit 2.iii.A report of Public Investment Committee on Roads 2013-2014- Dexhibit 3iv.Authorized payments by Public Investment Committee- Dexhibit 4.v.Ad-Hoc Report on petition against the Report of Public Accounts and Investment Committee Committee – Dexhibit 5.vi.2nd Report by Ad-Hoc Committee on petition against report of Public Accounts and Investment Committee – Dexhibit 6.vii.A summary of the findings of Ad-Hoc Committee on the petition against Report of the Public Accounts & Investment Committee from County Assembly Trans-Nzoia –Dexhibit 7.viii.Newspaper cutting – Dexhibit 8.ix.Memorandum to the Governor by Trans-Nzoia Contractors Association – Dexhibit 9. 33.He testified that it was usual practice for tenderers for various goods and services to be notified in writing about Tenders received and given offers and that the tenderer must accept the offer, collect the Local Service Order and sign contracts. That it is then that goods/services are supplied with periodical supervision being done by the County. 34.He further stated that a Completion Certificate is usually done by the procuring entity to facilitate payment to the contractor before the project is handed over to the procuring entity. 35.He clarified that the defendant’s official address is P O Box 4122-30200 Kitale and that the contracts in the County are usually signed by Accounting Officers on behalf of the County Government. 36.When pressed under cross-examination on whether he had perused through the plaintiff’s documents, he stated that the procurement thereon was not valid. He however conceded that the Local Service Orders (L.S.Os) tendered were valid. He however stated that from the documents he had tendered the plaintiff was not paid and that the documents only show the contractors paid. 37.He stated that despite stating that the plaintiff was fraudulent in its dealings with the defendant, he had not made any complaint to any authority. He however insisted that the plaintiff was not pre-qualified as a contractor and could have engaged in corruption to get the Tenders. He however stated that he had not reported the same to the investigative agencies. 38.He stated that the plaintiff dealt with officers with conflict of interest and stated the officers had since left employment. He stated that some documents were signed by a Mr Muindi who worked with the defendant from Transition Authority but added that the documents were not endorsed by the procuring entity. When pressed to state if the County took any action against Mr Muindi, he stated that no action was taken but the defendant simply stopped payments with respect to contracts irregularly procured. He stated that the report by Auditor General shows some work was done but in other places nothing was done. He however gave no details of the same but insisted that the roads done were not inspected and others were sub-standard. He however could not give details or any report regarding the same. 39.He further testified that though the County Assembly can recommend payments, but a contractor is required to supply documents to support the claims because payments could not be based on recommendation only. 40.He clarified that the only Local Service Orders endorsed were No.24 PExhibit 11(f) for Kshs.2,328,000/- and No.25 PExhibit 11(g) with respect to Kshs.5,348,800/- and that others were not endorsed by relevant officers. He stated that the plaintiff has not exhibited Completion Certificates to justify its claims. 41.This court has laid out both the plaintiff’s case as well as that of the defendant. Both parties through their respective counsels have also filed final written submissions to sum up their respective positions. This court will consider the same as it evaluates the evidence tendered. 42.The plaintiff’s suit against the defendant as observed above is based on breach of contract. It claims that it supplied services to the defendant but upon completion, the defendant failed to meet its side of the bargain by paying for the services rendered. The defendant on the other hand claims that the services were irregularly procured and that the work done was incomplete or sub-standard hence the basis or reasons for their refusal to honour the demand for payment. 43.The issues that emerge from this suit are as follows;i.Whether there was a binding agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant.ii.Whether the plaintiff rendered contracted services to the defendant.iii.Whether they are owed the amount claimed. 44.(i)Whether there is/are binding agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant.This issue is highly contested in this case. The plaintiff claims that it tendered for road works maintenance in various roads within Trans-Nzoia at the behest of the defendant. The defendant on the other hand claims that the plaintiff was not regularly procured because according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not pre-qualified as a contractor. 45.This court has considered the evidence tendered by the plaintiff and in particular a letter dated 1/10/2013 tendered as PExhibit 12. The letter is headed ‘letter Of Acceptance’ with reference given as CGTN/CTC/55/2013-13 Prequalification For Routine Maintenance Of Rural Access Roads”. The letter is addressed to the plaintiff’s company and it informs the plaintiff that “your bid for pre-qualification in the above category was successful…”. The Letter of Offer is duly signed by the plaintiff and stamped on 10th October 2013 to acknowledge acceptance. The letter is duly signed on behalf of the defendant. 46.The attention of this court is drawn to another letter dated 1/10/2013 tendered as PExhibit 13 which was also a Letter of Acceptance by the defendant indicating that the plaintiff had been prequalified for “Civil And Building Contractors, Renovation Works For Government Offices And Residential Houses”. The letter is duly signed by one J.M. Tevulo or the defendant while the plaintiff’s company signed and stamped on 11/10/2013. 47.This court finds that in the face of the above two documents to wit PExhibit 12 and 13, the plaintiff has proved to the required standard in civil law that contrary to the defendant’s assertion, it was duly pre-qualified to carry out road maintenance in various roads within Trans-Nzoia County in 2013. 48.The defendant in its written submissions dated 3/2/2026 done through learned counsel M/s Z.K. Yego submits that procurement involving Public Bodies must adhere to the laid down lawful procedures as held in Pakatewa Investment Co Ltd –vs- Municipal Council of Malindi (2016)eKLR which I concur. However I am not persuaded by the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s documents to wit PExhibit12 and 13 (the documents showing the plaintiff was prequalified) are invalid because they were not witnessed. The question is did the letters originate from the defendant and are they dully signed? The answer to that question is in the positive. The defendant has not denounced the said documents. Neither did it take action against the author of the said Letters of Offer to demonstrate that he gave out Offer Letters without authority and/or fraudulently. 49.This court takes the position that a party cannot evade responsibility or obligations arising from documents on grounds of irregularity or illegality unless it is shown that immediate remedial action was taken as soon as the party concerned realized the fraud/illegality or irregularity. In this case the defendant did not explain whether there was either disciplinary or criminal action against the officer who issued the plaintiff with pre-qualification letters. The allegations of fraud, irregularities and/or illegality by the plaintiff have not been established or proved by the defendant. 50.(ii)Whether the plaintiff rendered services.This court from the evidence tendered notes that the plaintiff’s claim is based on various Tenders and Contracts and for ease of reference and proper determination, it is orderly to evaluate them one by one because as the defendant’s own witness conceded during trial, some of the plaintiff’s documents were legitimate that is indicative that work was done while others had anomalies. 51.The plaintiff tendered a Tender dated 7/4/2014 under reference “maintenance D286- Ben Kipcho-Kisawai River – CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014- 2KM road”. The Tender is signed by one J.T Muindi for County Secretary. The accompanying contract (PExhibit 1(b) however is in respect to “maintenance Sangwai Junction –Dan-Teltet with a contract price of Kshs.3,829,000”. The plaintiff’s witness PW1 during cross-examination gave inconsistent sum of Kshs.1,446,000/-. In light of the inconsistency between the amount claimed as per PExhibit 1(b) and the amount stated by PW1 under cross-examination, this court finds that the plaintiff’s claim in respect to that Tender (PExhibit 1(b) is not proved. The plaintiff’s claim in that regard is also inconsistent with the Local Service Order exhibited as Pexhbit 11(i) which shows the contract sum of Kshs.1,230,500/-. To that extent therefore I find the plaintiff’s claim of Kshs.3,829,000 particularized under paragraph 5 of the plaint is not proved to the required standard because even the Local Service Order (PExhibit 11(i) indicates an inconsistent sum of Kshs.1,230,500/-. 52.In the same breadth I find that Tender dated 7/4/2014 with respect to road maintenance of Kistoi Academy-Kandie Cheptumbelio Junction-length 1KM is inconsistent with Contract Agreement exhibited as PExhibit 4(b) which contract relates to Road maintenance of Milembe Primary-Kisawai Bridge Junction, Kinyoro Ward with contract price of Kshs.2,006,750/-. The plaintiff’s witness (PW1) when pressed under cross-examination conceded that the Local Service Order (PExhbit 11(h) shows a variation of Kshs.10,000/-. This court has perused through the Local Service Order numbered as (26) and the amount quoted is Kshs.2,992,000 and the road referred to is D286 Ole Ndiema Junction-Nasianda while this could be a mix up given the number of documents exhibited by the plaintiff, the burden of proof always lie on whoever alleges. This court finds that given the nature of documents and the number (which this court took several days when writing this judgment to verify), the plaintiff ought to have been more diligent to discharge the burden of proof. 53.This court finds that the plaintiff in that regard has failed to prove that specific claim that it rendered the contracted services. 54.The other anomaly this court noted is Tender for maintenance Major Cherambus Junction-Elizabeth Primary School. Tender No.CGTN/Q/246/2013-14 1KM in length –Pexhibit 5(a). The contract sum shown in the contract is Kshs.773,150/- but when one looks at the Local Service Order tendered as PExhibit 11(b). The sum shown is Kshs.1,059,000/. The apparent inconsistency means that the plaintiff has failed to prove the said claim. 55.The other claim which is found with an anomaly is Tender for maintenance of Milembe Primary-Kisawai Bridge Junction in Kinyoro Ward (PExhibit 3(a). The plaintiff failed to tender Contract Agreement binding the defendant in regard to the contracted service. Besides that, this court also found that the Local Service Order, with respect to the said Tender and tendered as PExhibit 11(c) again shows a contract sum of Kshs.1,266,500 which is inconsistent with contract sum of Kshs.2,006,750/- sum reflected on the Tender (PExhibit 3(a). The inconsistency is unexplained and to that extent I find that the plaintiff’s claim in that regard cannot be sustained. 56.This court has scrutinized the claim in respect to contracted road work at Matisi pleaded as Tender No.CGTN/CTC/100/2013-2014 on various roads on FPFK- Shanti- Seed Academy-PAG Lavington-Kari Gate-Main Prison-Annex-Makuti-Kari-Cherangany Hospital and Maili Tatu-Prison Primary-Soweto-Wamuini. There was no Tender or Contract tendered by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the plaintiff rendered the service. The only piece of evidence is Local Service Order tendered as PExhibit 11(g) but without the necessary supporting documents, I find that the plaintiff’s claim in that regard cannot be sustained. 57.The other claim that this court finds to have inconsistencies is Tender in regard to maintenance Nasianda Coffee Factory Junction-Saboti Forest –Tender No. CGTN/Q/246/2013-2014 produced by the plaintiff as PExhibit 2(a). The sum reflected on the Tender and Contract (PExhibit 2(b) is Kshs.1,396,500/- but the Local Service Order tendered as PExhibit 11(j) in respect to the same road is Kshs.1,406,500/-. The inconsistency is not well explained. 58.The plaintiff has also claimed that it rendered services with respect to Road maintenance of Sangwai Junction-Dam Teltet as per Contract Agreement exhibited as PExhibit 1(b) and Local Service Order exhibited as PExhibit 11(k). However there is no Letter of Offer or Tender document from the defendant to demonstrate that the claim or that the service was regularly procured. 59.This court finds that the claim by the plaintiff in that regard has not been proved to the required standard. 60.On the other hand this court finds that the plaintiff’s following claims are well established and proved to the required standard.i.Tender PExhibit 6(a) supported by contract PExhibit 6(b) and Local Service Order PExhibit 11(b). Contract sum Kshs.2,992,000/-.ii.Tender PExhibit 7(b) supported by contract PExhibit 7(a). Contract sum Kshs.3,360,000/-.iii.Tender Pexhibit 9(a) supported by contract Pexhibit 9(b). Contract sum Kshs.1,968,000/-. 61.The claim on hire of motor grader as per Local Service Order PExhibit 11(f) is also proved on account of admission of the validity of the said Local Service Order by DW1. 62.To answer the 3rd issue for determination on whether the defendant owes the plaintiff, this court finds that on the basis of the aforesaid findings, the following sums are due;a.Kshs.2,992,000/-b.Kshs.3,360,000/-c.Kshs.1,968,000/-d.Kshs.2,328,000/-Total 10,648,000/-The long and short of this is that this court finds that the plaintiff has proved to the required standard based on the documents placed before me that it is owed a total of Kshs.10,648,000/-. Judgment is therefore entered against the defendant for that sum plus costs and interests at court rates from the date of filing this suit to the date of payment. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KITALE THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY , 2026.HON JUSTICE R.K. LIMOKITALE HIGH COURTJudgment delivered in open courtIn the presence ofRutto holding brief for Yego for defendantNabwile holding brief for Songole for the plaintiffDuke/Chemosop- court assistants