[2012] KEHC 5900 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5900 (KLR)

The court found that a valid and binding contract existed between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant upon the Plaintiff's acceptance of the letter of appointment. The clause making payment of fee notes subject to the release of funds by the financier was interpreted as a condition affecting the timing of payment, not the existence of the contract itself. The Defendants failed to provide evidence that the financier was identified, that funding was sought and declined, or that the Plaintiff's services were not performed. The Plaintiff's work was corroborated by the lead consultant and verified by KPMG, and all other consultants were paid under similar contracts. The court held that the...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5900 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Engineer E.M. Kithimba T/A Kithimba Associates Consulting Engineers; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General; Defendant: Coast Development Authority
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Case Number
Civil Suit 401 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Professional Fees, Conditions Precedent, Repudiation of Contract, Joint and Several Liability
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Formation Professional Fees Conditions Precedent Repudiation of Contract Joint and Several Liability

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

Parties

Engineer E.M. Kithimba T/A Kithimba Associates Consulting Engineers

Plaintiff

The Hon. Attorney General

Defendant

Coast Development Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid and binding contract between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the contract was conditional upon the release of funds by the financier.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff performed his obligations under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a valid and binding contract existed between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant upon the Plaintiff's acceptance of the letter of appointment. The clause making payment of fee notes subject to the release of funds by the financier was interpreted as a condition affecting the timing of payment, not the existence of the contract itself. The Defendants failed to provide evidence that the financier was identified, that funding was sought and declined, or that the Plaintiff's services were not performed. The Plaintiff's work was corroborated by the lead consultant and verified by KPMG, and all other consultants were paid under similar contracts. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally for Kshs.3,947,680/-.
  • Interest at court rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.