[2025] KEHC 9829 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9829 (KLR)

The court found that a framework contract existed between the parties for the supply of foodstuffs, and that the plaintiff supplied goods under LPO No. 24XXX02, which was acknowledged by the defendant's agent. The defendant's denial of the LPO's existence was not substantiated, and the evidence from the Government Printer confirmed the LPO booklet was issued to the defendant. Delivery notes and corroborating testimony established that goods were delivered and received. The defendant failed to prove allegations of forgery or fraud. The plaintiff discharged its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, entitling it to judgment for the contract sum, interest, and costs.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9829 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Microbit Systems Limited; Defendant: Mandera County Government
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Garissa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Suit E004 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Judges
JN Onyiego
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Public Procurement, Supply of Goods, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Public Procurement Supply of Goods Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microbit Systems Limited

Plaintiff

Mandera County Government

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contract between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged contract was breached by the defendant.
  3. 3 What remedy is available to the plaintiff, if any.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a framework contract existed between the parties for the supply of foodstuffs, and that the plaintiff supplied goods under LPO No. 24XXX02, which was acknowledged by the defendant's agent. The defendant's denial of the LPO's existence was not substantiated, and the evidence from the Government Printer confirmed the LPO booklet was issued to the defendant. Delivery notes and corroborating testimony established that goods were delivered and received. The defendant failed to prove allegations of forgery or fraud. The plaintiff discharged its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, entitling it to judgment for the contract sum, interest, and costs.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for Kes 42,028,000.
  • Interest on Kes 42,028,000 at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.