[2003] KEHC 501 (KLR)
The Plaintiff established through uncontroverted evidence that it rendered professional services to the Defendant, who failed to pay the invoiced amounts. The Defendant issued a cheque in partial settlement, which was dishonoured, resulting in additional bank charges. The Defendant did not dispute the claim in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 501 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ernst & Young; Defendant: Subukia Tea Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 507 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Plaintiff as prayed; Defendant's counterclaim and set-off dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Debt Recovery, Professional Services Fees, Bank Charges, Counterclaim, Set Off
- 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
Ernst & Young
Plaintiff
Subukia Tea Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff for professional services rendered.
- 2 Whether the Defendant is liable for bank charges arising from a dishonoured cheque.
- 3 Whether the Defendant's counterclaim and set-off have merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The Plaintiff established through uncontroverted evidence that it rendered professional services to the Defendant, who failed to pay the invoiced amounts. The Defendant issued a cheque in partial settlement, which was dishonoured, resulting in additional bank charges. The Defendant did not dispute the claim in correspondence and failed to attend the hearing or adduce evidence in support of its Defence, Counterclaim, or Set-off. The court found the Plaintiff's claim proved and the Defendant's counterclaims unsupported, warranting judgment for the Plaintiff as prayed.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Plaintiff as prayed; Defendant's counterclaim and set-off dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for Kshs. 624,363 and Kshs. 16,169.15 as bank charges.
- Interest at court rates on the sums awarded until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 507 OF 2000
ERNST & YOUNG ………………………………………………...PLAINTIFF
(Suing as a firm)
VERSUS
SUBUKIA TEA COMPANY LIMITED ………………………..DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant seeking Judgment as follows:
“(a) Kshs. 624,363,
(b) Kshs. 16,169. 15 being bank charges for the cheque returned
(c) Interest on (a) and (b) at Prime Commercial Bank rates from the date of accrual until payment in full
(d) (Costs)
(e) V.A.T.
(f) (Other relief)
The Defendant filed a Defence, Counter claim and Set-off but did not attend the hearing of the case although the hearing date was taken by consent in court in the presence of its Managing Director. The Defendant was previously represented by a firm of Advocates but those Advocates withdrew from acting for it.
At the hearing, Mrs. Avni Gilani, a partner with the Plaintiff firm stated that the Plaintiff, which is a firm of auditors, tax agents and management accountants, provided services to the Defendant which the Defendant has not paid for. She produced to the Court a number of Fee Notes which the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant (see PEX 1 a-m). In April 2000, the Defendant’s Managing Director went to the Plaintiff’s offices and issued the Plaintiff with a United States Dollar Cheque for US $ 15,111. 66. This was to cover the fees claimed from the Defendant and the Defendant’s sister companies for which the Plaintiff had also provided other services. The Plaintiff banked the said cheque but the same bounced. The same was produced in this Court as PEX 2. This caused the Plaintiff’s Bankers to charge them Kshs. 16,169. 15 as bank charges.
From the correspondence exchanged between the parties (see PEX 3, PEX 5a, PEX 7, PEX 8, PEX 9, PEX 10, PEX 11, PEX 12 and PEX 13 it is apparent that the Defendant does not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff’s testimony was not controverted in any way. The same must succeed. The Defendant did not lead any evidence to support its counterclaim and set off. The same must fail.
I, therefore, enter Judgment for the Plaintiff as prayed in the Plaint and dismiss the Defendant’s counterclaim and set off with costs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall also have interest at Court rates.
Dated and Delivered at Nakuru this 25th day of June, 2003.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE