[2025] KEHC 9764 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9764 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had proved on a balance of probabilities that it supplied goods to the Defendant and was not fully paid. The Assignment Agreement between the parties was interpreted as a payment facilitation mechanism, not as a transfer of liability or supply obligations to KPLC. The Defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9764 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Thames Electricals Limited; Defendant: Aee Power Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 July 2025
Case Number
Commercial Case E196 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_plaintiff
Judges
MA Otieno
Legal Topics
Contractual Debt Recovery, Supply of Goods, Assignment of Receivables, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Debt Recovery Supply of Goods Assignment of Receivables Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thames Electricals Limited

Plaintiff

Aee Power Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that it supplied goods to the Defendant and was not fully paid for the same.
  2. 2 Whether the Assignment Agreement absolved the Defendant of liability for payment to the Plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the Plaintiff's claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had proved on a balance of probabilities that it supplied goods to the Defendant and was not fully paid. The Assignment Agreement between the parties was interpreted as a payment facilitation mechanism, not as a transfer of liability or supply obligations to KPLC. The Defendant retained the duty to ensure payment to the Plaintiff and could not be absolved of liability merely because the assignment existed, especially since the Plaintiff had not received the outstanding sums. The Defendant's failure to adduce any evidence or witness statements in support of its defence meant that its assertions remained unsubstantiated allegations. The Plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for KES 33,605,617.92.
  • Interest at the contractual rate of 2% per month from 24th October 2019 until full payment.