[2006] KEHC 943 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 943 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant did not deny the existence of the contract or the provision of services by the plaintiff. The plaintiff demonstrated repeated demands for payment and produced a statement authored by the defendant reflecting the amount claimed. The defendant failed to disown this statement or provide credible evidence of payment or a genuine dispute as to the amount owed. The court held that the issues raised by the defendant were not bona fide triable issues but rather attempts to delay payment. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgement for the liquidated sum claimed, as the defendant's defences were a smokescreen and did...

Citation
[2006] KEHC 943 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Dew Security Services Ltd; Defendant: Mugoya Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
2 November 2006
Case Number
Civil Case 190 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgement
Outcome
judgement for the plaintiff
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Summary Judgement, Contractual Debt, Liquidated Claims, Triable Issues
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgement Contractual Debt Liquidated Claims Triable Issues

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dew Security Services Ltd

Plaintiff

Mugoya Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgement for the claimed contractual sum.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has raised any bona fide triable issue warranting leave to defend.
  3. 3 Whether the claim is a liquidated demand suitable for summary judgement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant did not deny the existence of the contract or the provision of services by the plaintiff. The plaintiff demonstrated repeated demands for payment and produced a statement authored by the defendant reflecting the amount claimed. The defendant failed to disown this statement or provide credible evidence of payment or a genuine dispute as to the amount owed. The court held that the issues raised by the defendant were not bona fide triable issues but rather attempts to delay payment. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgement for the liquidated sum claimed, as the defendant's defences were a smokescreen and did...

Court Disposition

judgement for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgement is entered for the plaintiff for Kshs.8,112,573.52 plus costs and interest.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the Notice of Motion dated 2nd June, 2006.