[2014] KEHC 1887 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1887 (KLR)

The court found that the contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant was for the supply of Fuel Oil 180 Sludge, not Jet A1 fuel. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant breached the contract, as the documentation (invoices and receipts) supported the Defendant's position. The Plaintiff also failed to prove...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 1887 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Gitonga Ndirangu; Defendant: Total (K) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 November 2014
Case Number
Civil Suit 11 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Both Plaintiff's suit and Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Special Damages, Counterclaim, Sale of Goods
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Breach of Contract Specific Performance Special Damages Counterclaim Sale of Goods

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Gitonga Ndirangu

Plaintiff

Total (K) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Plaintiff and Defendant contract for the supply of 50,000 litres of Sludge or Jet A1 fuel?
  2. 2 What fuel was actually released to the Plaintiff?
  3. 3 Did the Defendant breach the contract? If yes, is Plaintiff entitled to prayers in the Plaint?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant was for the supply of Fuel Oil 180 Sludge, not Jet A1 fuel. The Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant breached the contract, as the documentation (invoices and receipts) supported the Defendant's position. The Plaintiff also failed to prove ownership of the lorry or entitlement to special damages, as such damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, which was not done. The Defendant, on the other hand, failed to prove the price difference for Jet A1 fuel and thus could not succeed in its counterclaim. As neither party proved their case on a balance of probabilities, both the Plaintiff's suit and the...

Court Disposition

Both Plaintiff's suit and Defendant's counterclaim dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with no orders as to costs.