[2000] KECA 25 (KLR)

[2000] KECA 25 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the lease-purchase agreements between the parties were unconditional and did not require the respondent to obtain a loan from Standard Chartered Bank as a condition precedent. The evidence, including correspondence after the agreements were concluded, demonstrated that the only...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KECA 25 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: The Government of the United States of America; Respondent: Joseph Muiruri Githongo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 27 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lease Purchase Agreements, Conditional Contracts, Payment by Installments, Mutual Mistake, Frustration of Contract
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Lease Purchase Agreements Conditional Contracts Payment by Installments Mutual Mistake Frustration of Contract

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Government of the United States of America

Appellant

Joseph Muiruri Githongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the lease-purchase agreements were conditional upon the respondent obtaining a loan from Standard Chartered Bank.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a loan from Standard Chartered Bank constituted a mutual mistake or frustration of the agreements.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the terms of the agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the lease-purchase agreements between the parties were unconditional and did not require the respondent to obtain a loan from Standard Chartered Bank as a condition precedent. The evidence, including correspondence after the agreements were concluded, demonstrated that the only arrangement regarding the bank was the remittance of payments directly to the bank at the respondent's request. The respondent's private intention or expectation that the agreements were conditional upon securing a loan was not communicated to the appellant and was not reflected in the written agreements. Therefore, there was no mutual mistake or frustration of contract. The trial...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant on the terms proposed by Akiwumi, J.A.