[2014] KEHC 3833 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant did not have a direct contractual relationship with the respondent, as all dealings and payments were conducted through Odiembo Farmers Cooperative Society. The respondent discharged its obligations by paying the society, and any outstanding amounts were the responsibility of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3833 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Consolata Odhiambo; Respondent: Kibos Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 67 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Contractual Relationships, Payment Disputes, Agency and Representative Actions
- 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
Consolata Odhiambo
Appellant
Kibos Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant dealt directly with the respondent in supplying sugarcane.
- 2 Whether the respondent paid for the sugarcane delivered by the appellant.
- 3 Whether failure to join the farmers society as a party was fatal to the appellant's claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant did not have a direct contractual relationship with the respondent, as all dealings and payments were conducted through Odiembo Farmers Cooperative Society. The respondent discharged its obligations by paying the society, and any outstanding amounts were the responsibility of the society, not the respondent. The failure to join the society as a party to the suit was fatal to the appellant's claim, as the society was the proper party to pursue or defend the claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2010
CONSOLATA ODHIAMBO...............................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
KIBOS SUGAR & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.............................RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant herein supplied her sugarcane worth Kshs. 79,500 to the Respondent sometimes in the year 2008. According to her the respondent refused and or failed to pay compelling her to file the suit at the lower court.
The respondent mounted a defence arguing that the sugarcane it received was from Odiembo Farmers Cooperative Society in which it made payment thereafter. It argued that they did not deal with the appellant directly.
The court dismissed the suit prompting this appeal. The appellant has filed 4 grounds of appeal. Substantially the issues can be summarised as whether or not the appellant dealt with the respondent directly and whether the respondent paid for the sugarcane delivered to the respondent. Although the tonnage and the prices is disputed the respondent acknowledged that it received the sugarcane from Odiembo Farmers Cooperative Society. The delivery documents produced by the appellant shows that the farmers name was New Odiembo Society and the field where the cane was harvested from belonged to the appellant. A cheque was also issued by the respondent date 29-2-2008 for the sum of Kshs. 35,137. 55/= to the aforestated society.
The evidence in chief of the appellant is worth reproducing here. She said:
“I was dealing with the society but they were unable to recover so I was suffering I decided to take action. They would send cheques through the society which they failed to do. They sent little money but the more amount remained with the factory....”
Clearly, the appellant admitted that she never received money directly from the respondent but it only came through the society. She however during her testimony admitted receiving Kshs. 18,000/= from the respondent, but there was no evidence to this testimony.
Upon reading the evidence of the respondent witness, namely DW1 and DW2 I am persuaded that the appellant although she supplied the cane to the respondent, she never dealt with them directly but through her society. Any amount paid by the respondent towards any settlement was paid to the society and not the appellant.
Further, the appellant's exhibit 3 was written to the society by the respondent advising that it would only pay once the issue is resolved. My understanding of the letter is that the payment was to be made to the society and not the appellant.
The court found that the failure to join the society in the case was fatal. This position was true since as found above the appellant did not deal with the respondent. If any payment was made then it is the society which ought to be held responsible and not the respondent.
Consequently, I find that the respondent discharged its mandate and further there was no contractual agreement with the appellant. I shall dismiss this appeal but order that each party meets their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 23rd day of June2014.
H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE