[2023] KEHC 24334 (KLR)
The court found that while a valid contract existed between the parties, the respondent failed to prove that he had notified the appellant of the cane's maturity, as required by the contract. The obligation to inform the appellant was a condition precedent to the appellant's duty to harvest the cane. Since the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24334 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sukari Industries Limited; Respondent: Odondi Otana
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E062 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Quantum of Damages, Contractual Obligations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sukari Industries Limited
Appellant
Odondi Otana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was a valid contract between the parties.
- 2 Whether the appellant breached the contract with the respondent.
- 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages for the alleged breach.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while a valid contract existed between the parties, the respondent failed to prove that he had notified the appellant of the cane's maturity, as required by the contract. The obligation to inform the appellant was a condition precedent to the appellant's duty to harvest the cane. Since the respondent did not fulfill this obligation, there was no breach by the appellant. Consequently, the trial magistrate’s finding of breach and the award of damages were set aside. The appeal was allowed with costs to the appellant.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The judgment and award of the trial magistrate are set aside.
- The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Sukari Industries Limited v Otana (Civil Appeal E062 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 24334 (KLR) (26 October 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24334 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Homa Bay
Civil Appeal E062 of 2022
KW Kiarie, J
October 26, 2023
Between
Sukari Industries Limited
Appellant
and
Odondi Otana
Respondent
(Being an Appeal from the judgment in Ndhiwa Principal Magistrate’s PMCC No. 292 of 2016 by Hon. Mary A. Ochieng –Principal Magistrate)
Judgment
1. In Ndhiwa Principal Magistrate’s Court civil case No.292 of 2016, Sukari Industries Co. Limited was the defendant, in a lawsuit filed by the respondent for a claim of breach of contract. The respondent sought compensation for three unharvested cycles. On July 19, 2022, the trial magistrate ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered the appellant to pay Kshs.221, 600. 00.
2. The appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment and filed this appeal. The appellant was represented by the firm of Olendo, & Samba Advocates LLP. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:a.The learned trial magistrate erred in fact and in law in treating the evidence and submissions before her superficially and consequently coming to a wrong conclusion on the same.b.The learned trial magistrate erred in fact and in law ignoring the principles applicable in awarding quantum of damages and the relevant authorities on quantum cited in the written submissions presented and filed by the appellant.c.The learned trial magistrate erred in fact and in law by awarding the respondent exemplary damages, yet in the plaint, the respondent did not plead for the said award.d.The learned trial magistrate erred in fact and in law in finding that the respondent had proved his case on a balance of probability.e.The learned trial magistrate erred in fact and in law in ignoring the pleadings and submissions for the defence.f.The learned trial magistrate erred in fact and in law in failing to appreciate sufficiently or at all that the evidence tendered in favor of the appellant controverted and rebutted the respondent’s evidence thus lowering the respondent’s probative evidentiary value.g.Without prejudice to the foregoing, the award of damages in the circumstances was excessive.
3. The respondent was represented by the firm of Ochillo & Company Advocates who raised the following grounds:a.That the respondent did not prove his case;b.That exemplary damages were awarded erroneously; andc.That the appeal lacked merit.
4. As the first appellate court, it is my responsibility to carefully review all of the evidence presented and take into consideration that I did not have the opportunity to observe the witnesses testify and their behavior. I will follow the principles outlined in the case of Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co Ltd. [1965] EA 123, which states that the first appellate court must examine and assess the evidence that was presented in the trial court, and then come to its own conclusions on the matter.
5. The trial magistrate had two main issues to consider: whether there was a contract between the parties and if there was a breach.
6. In the statement of defence, the appellant denied the existence of a contract between the parties. However, the Cane Farming and Supply Contract No. 0003216 contradicted this denial. On page 6 of the agreement, both parties signed the contract in the presence of Joseph A. Nyingilo, the assistant chief of the Kakmasia sub-location.
7. The trial magistrate determined that the two parties had entered into a valid contract, based on the copy of the contract that was presented in court and signed by both parties. This finding cannot be challenged.
8. The duties of the Grower (respondent) are spelled out in clauses 7. 1 to 7. 15. Clause 7. 2 of the agreement states:The grower shall offer for delivery on maturity in accordance with clause (1) above and deliver to the miller all such cane as is derived from his contracted field and no other using the Miller’s transport or the Grower’s appointed transporter approved in advance by the Miller.
9. Based on my interpretation of this clause, the Grower was responsible for informing the Miller when the Sugar Cane was ready for harvesting. The phrase "The Grower shall offer for delivery on maturity" can only mean this. However, the respondent did not mention in his evidence that he notified the appellant about the cane's maturity. I find that the appellant did not breach the contract since the respondent did not fulfill his obligation as envisaged in clause 3 of the agreement to prompt the appellant's expected action.
10. I therefore set aside the finding by the trial magistrate that the appellant was in breach of the contract as well as the award. The appeal is allowed with costs.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT HOMA BAY THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE