[2017] KEHC 5757 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5757 (KLR)

The court found that although the plaintiff breached the hire purchase agreement by defaulting on payments, the defendant's repossession and sale of the vehicle without a court order was unlawful because the plaintiff had paid more than two-thirds of the hire purchase price. Section 15 of the Hire Purchase Act...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5757 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: David Karobia Kiiru; Defendant: Laverage Company Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 April 2017
Case Number
Civil Case 24 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Judges
JK Mulwa
Legal Topics
Hire Purchase Agreements, Repossession of Goods, Breach of Contract, Statutory Compliance
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Hire Purchase Agreements Repossession of Goods Breach of Contract Statutory Compliance

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Karobia Kiiru

Plaintiff

Laverage Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff breached the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31st August 2004.
  2. 2 Whether the repossession and sale of the plaintiff's motor vehicle after payment of more than two-thirds of the hire purchase price was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the plaintiff breached the hire purchase agreement by defaulting on payments, the defendant's repossession and sale of the vehicle without a court order was unlawful because the plaintiff had paid more than two-thirds of the hire purchase price. Section 15 of the Hire Purchase Act expressly prohibits repossession in such circumstances except by suit. The defendant's actions contravened statutory requirements, and contractual clauses could not override the Act. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover all sums paid under the agreement, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of Kshs.498,334/= with interest at court rates from 7th February 2007 until payment in full.
  • The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs.