[2022] KECPT 892 (KLR)

[2022] KECPT 892 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had deposited Ksh 3,339,840.00 with the Respondent for the Gem Juja Project, which did not proceed as planned. The Respondent's offer of an alternative project did not negate the Claimant's right to a refund, as the original project failed and there was no evidence that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KECPT 892 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Purity Wangu Gitonga; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 477 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant.
Judges
M Mwatsama, Gitonga Kamiti, M. Mbeneka
Legal Topics
Housing Project Deposit Refund, Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Remedies for Failed Projects
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Housing Project Deposit Refund Breach of Contract Specific Performance Remedies for Failed Projects

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Purity Wangu Gitonga

Applicant

Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of her deposit of Ksh 3,339,840.00 for the failed Gem Juja Project.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent is justified in offering an alternative project instead of refunding the deposit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had deposited Ksh 3,339,840.00 with the Respondent for the Gem Juja Project, which did not proceed as planned. The Respondent's offer of an alternative project did not negate the Claimant's right to a refund, as the original project failed and there was no evidence that the Claimant accepted the alternative. The Tribunal held that the Respondent was obligated to refund the deposit, as the consideration for the contract failed. The Respondent's arguments regarding the use of the deposit for land and surveyor expenses were not sufficient to defeat the Claimant's claim, as the project was not delivered and the contractual purpose was frustrated....

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant.

Orders

  • The Respondent shall refund Ksh 3,339,840.00 to the Claimant.
  • The Respondent shall pay interest on the sum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.