Rana Auto Selection Limited v Kanyoro & another (Civil Appeal E024 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 4 (KLR) (7 January 2026) (Judgment)

Rana Auto Selection Limited v Kanyoro & another (Civil Appeal E024 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 4 (KLR) (7 January 2026) (Judgment)

There was a valid contract between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, but no privity of contract or agency relationship existed between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. The Appellant was not party to the contract between the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and no evidence established agency. Therefore, no cause of action lay against the Appellant, and the suit against it was not maintainable.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 4 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Rana Auto Selection Limited; 1st Respondent: Wilson Maina Kanyoro; 2nd Respondent: Skyworld Motors Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 January 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E024 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Agency Relationship, Sale of Goods, Appeals
Source Language
English
Contract Law Agency Law Privity of Contract Agency Relationship Sale of Goods Appeals

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rana Auto Selection Limited

Appellant

Wilson Maina Kanyoro

1st Respondent

Skyworld Motors Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid contract between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent
  2. 2 Whether there was privity of contract between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent
  3. 3 Whether there existed an agency relationship between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent

Ratio Decidendi

There was a valid contract between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, but no privity of contract or agency relationship existed between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. The Appellant was not party to the contract between the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and no evidence established agency. Therefore, no cause of action lay against the Appellant, and the suit against it was not maintainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order allowing the suit against the Appellant is quashed.
  • The claim against the Appellant is dismissed.