https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8352

Charles v South Nyanza Sugar Company Ltd (Civil Appeal E130 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8352 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8352 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Migori Civil Appeal E130 of 2021 ACA Ong’injo, J May 28, 2026 Between Margaret A Charles Appellant and South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited Respondent (Being an appeal from the judgment and Decree of Hon. R. K. Langat SRM delivered on 23rd Day of April 2018 in Rongo PMCC No. 151 of 2014) Judgment 1.By a Plaint dated 7th July 2014 the Appellant sued the Respondent for:i.Damages for breach of the contractii.costs of the suitiii.Interest from the date of the contract 2.Upon consideration of the evidence from both parties as well as submissions the Trial Magistrate issued a verdict that the Appellant’s cause was time barred because he failed to file suit when the Respondent failed to harvest plant crop. 3.Vide Memorandum of Appeal dated 16th December, 2021 the Appellant lodged the appeal herein on the following ground:1.That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in disregarding the evidence of the Appellant.2.That the Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in lending credence to a so-called warning letter which letter was conjured up purposely to defeat the Appellant’s suit, was inaccurate and was not compliant with the contract in issue.3.That the Learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit on the basis that the claim was not proved on a balance of probabilities.4.That the Learned Magistrate erred in law in failing to 2find that the Appellant had proved her case on a balance of probabilities. 4.Reasons Wherefore the Appellant prays for orders that:-a.That the appeal be allowed and judgment be set aside.b.There be judgment for the Appellantc.The court do assess and award the Appellant damages for the breach of contractd.Intereste.That the costs of the appeal and subordinate court be awarded to the Appellant. 5.The Trial Magistrate established that if the Plant Crop was not harvested then the breach of contract occurred on the date the Plant Crop was supposed to be harvested. That in the circumstances the Appellant ought to have filed the suit within 6 years of such breach and latest by 18th September 2012 or by 28th November 2012 as per the Respondent’s Job Completion Certificate produced as exhibit. That the current suit having been filed 12th June 2014 was therefore time barred by operation of Section 4(1) (a) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The suit was therefore dismissed with costs on account of limitation of time. 6.The appeal herein was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Appellant’s submissions are undated but were filed on 29th January 2025. The Respondents’ submissions and list of authorities are dated 13th June 2025. 7.The Appellant also filed further submissions dated 3rd October, 2025 in reply to the Respondents submissions. Analysis and determination 8.This being a first appeal, this Court is obligated to reconsider and re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the trial court and draw its own conclusions while bearing in mind that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses testify. This duty was stated in Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd. 9.Having considered the Record of Appeal, the judgment of the trial court and the submissions by the parties, the issue arising for determination is whether the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in dismissing the Appellant’s claim on account of limitation of Actions Act. 10.The contract between the parties provided that it would remain in force for a period of five (5) years or until the plant crop and two ratoon crops were harvested, whichever period was shorter. The Appellant’s claim was therefore founded on an alleged failure by the Respondent to harvest the contracted cane in accordance with the agreement. 11.The Learned Trial Magistrate held that the cause of action accrued when the Respondent failed to harvest the plant crop and that time began to run from the date when the plant crop ought to have been harvested. Consequently, the trial court found that the suit ought to have been filed within six years from the date of such breach pursuant to Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act and that the suit filed on 12th June 2014 was statute barred. 13.The question for determination before this Court is therefore whether the Learned Trial Magistrate properly determined the date when the cause of action accrued. 14.It is now settled that in sugarcane farming contracts, where the agreement contemplates harvesting of the plant crop together with ratoon crops, the cause of action does not necessarily arise only upon failure to harvest the plant crop. The Court must consider the nature and duration of the contract and whether the agreement remained subsisting notwithstanding failure to harvest the plant crop. 15.In South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd v Samson Omino [2014] eKLR, the Court held that where a contract provided for the harvesting of the plant crop and ratoon crops, the farmer’s cause of action encompasses the entire contractual period if the contract had not otherwise been lawfully terminated. Similarly, in South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd v Ezekiel Otuche [2018] eKLR, the Court emphasized that the terms of the agreement govern the rights and obligations of the parties and the accrual of causes of action. 16.In the present case, the agreement was to remain in force for five years or until the plant crop and two ratoon crops were harvested, whichever came first. The Respondent’s failure to harvest the plant crop did not automatically extinguished the contractual relationship unless there was evidence of lawful termination in accordance with the contract. The Trial Magistrate therefore fell into error by treating the expected harvest date of the plant crop as the definitive date of accrual of the cause of action without considering the continuing nature of the contract and the contemplated ratoon cycles. 17.Further, the Respondent relied on a Job Completion Certificate and warning letter to demonstrate completion or termination of the contractual obligations. However, the Appellant challenged the authenticity and contractual compliance of those documents. The trial court did not sufficiently interrogate whether the said documents effectively brought the contract to an end in accordance with its terms. 18.In the circumstances, this Court finds that the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in law in concluding that the Appellant’s claim was statute barred solely on the basis that the plant crop was not harvested by the expected harvest date. The dismissal of the suit on account of limitation was therefore erroneous. 19.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit on grounds of limitation is hereby set aside. The matter shall be remitted back to the trial court for purposes of assessment of damages for breach of the contract between the Appellant and the Respondent. Costs of the appeal shall abide the outcome of the suit. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI, THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.ANNE ONG’INJOJUDGE