[2012] KEHC 4370 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 4370 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant did not reject or give notice of rejection of the goods supplied and had made substantial payments towards the debt, amounting to an admission of liability. The assertion that the goods were of substandard quality was unsupported and amounted to a sham defence intended to delay payment. The sum claimed was a liquidated demand, ascertained by invoices and partly paid by the defendant. The court held that there was no triable issue and that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for the balance of the debt, together with interest and costs.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 4370 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Spin Knit Limited; Defendant: Subsahara Supplies Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Case Number
Civil Suit 114 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Judges
MJA Emukule
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Liquidated Demands, Admissions in Pleadings, Sale of Goods, Merchantable Quality
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Liquidated Demands Admissions in Pleadings Sale of Goods Merchantable Quality

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spin Knit Limited

Plaintiff

Subsahara Supplies Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's defence that the goods supplied were of substandard or unmerchantable quality raises a triable issue.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of admission and liquidated demand.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant did not reject or give notice of rejection of the goods supplied and had made substantial payments towards the debt, amounting to an admission of liability. The assertion that the goods were of substandard quality was unsupported and amounted to a sham defence intended to delay payment. The sum claimed was a liquidated demand, ascertained by invoices and partly paid by the defendant. The court held that there was no triable issue and that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for the balance of the debt, together with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of Ksh 500,000, being the balance of the original claim.
  • Interest awarded from the date of filing suit to the date of payment in full.