[2020] KEHC 103 (KLR)
The court held that the contract between the parties was valid despite the absence of a signature on the execution page, as both parties had signed every page, demonstrating their intention to be bound. The statutory duty to harvest sugarcane rests with the miller under the Sugar Act, which overrides any contrary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 103 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd; Respondent: Jezina Marowa Chavura
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 9 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- AC Mrima
- Legal Topics
- Contract Enforcement, Breach of Contract, Remedies for Breach, Agricultural Commercial Disputes
- 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
Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd
Appellant
Jezina Marowa Chavura
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an unsigned contract on the execution page but signed on all other pages is valid.
- 2 Whether the duty to harvest sugarcane lies with the miller or the farmer under the contract and the Sugar Act.
- 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to compensation for the second ratoon crop due to breach by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the contract between the parties was valid despite the absence of a signature on the execution page, as both parties had signed every page, demonstrating their intention to be bound. The statutory duty to harvest sugarcane rests with the miller under the Sugar Act, which overrides any contrary contractual provision. The appellant breached this duty by failing to harvest the mature cane, entitling the respondent to compensation for the second ratoon crop. The trial court's computation of the compensation was based on an expert report, undisputed land size, and the official cane price schedule, with all relevant deductions considered. The appellant failed on all grounds...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The judgment and decree of the trial court awarding Kshs. 124,416 for the second ratoon crop is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI
[Coram: A. C. Mrima, J.]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2019
TRANS MARA SUGAR CO. LTD................................APPELLANT
versus
JEZINA MAROWA CHAVURA................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the judgment and decree by Hon. R. Odenyo Senior
Principal Magistrate in Migori Magistrate's Civil Suit No. 2700 of 2015 delivered on 05/12/2018)
JUDGMENT
1. On 17/09/2019 this Court gave directions in Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019 Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Nelson Dedege Mbai. One of those directions was that the judgment in the said appeal do apply to this appeal on similar issues. The judgment dealt with three issues.
2. The first issue was the effect of a contract not signed by the farmer on the execution part which was on the last page although the contract was signed by both the farmer and the miller at the foot of every single page. The second issue was the interplay between the contract and the Sugar Act on the duty of harvest the cane. The contract vested that duty on the farmer whereas the Sugar Act vested the duty to harvest the cane on the miller. The third issue was whether transport charges attracted 16% VAT in the financial year 2013/2014.
3. This Court found the contract valid. It also found that the miller had the duty to harvest the cane since the contract could not override a statute. On the third issue this Court found that the 16% VAT on transport charges was applicable in the financial year 2013/2014. I hence incorporate the said judgement herein by reference.
4. In this appeal, the issue of the unsigned contract was raised. The issue of the duty to harvest the cane was also raised. As stated, the two issues in this appeal were settled in Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019 (supra). It is of essence to note that the contract between the parties herein was entered on 22/03/2011.
5. Following the finding on the Appellant’s duty to harvest the mature cane in Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019 (supra), the Appellant was in breach of the contract.
6. In the face of such breach the Respondent was entitled to compensation. In Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Joseph O. Onyango (2017) eKLR I found that once a farmer proves that the Miller failed to harvest the plant crop at maturity then the farmer is entitled to the proceeds of the plant crop as well as the ratoon crops subject to the pleadings. Equally, when a Miller fails to harvest the first ratoon crop then the farmer is entitled to compensation for the first and second ratoon crops subject to the contract.
7. The foregone is however subject to the legal position that disputes based on breach of contracts are subject to the principles of remoteness, causation and mitigation. However, the principles must be proved for applicability. (SeeMigori High Court Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2018 South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Rehema Joseph Nkonya(unreported).
8. In this case the Respondent prayed for the proceeds of the second ratoon crop. Accordingly, and in view of the breach of the contract, the Respondent was entitled to such compensation.
9. The trial court awarded the sum of Kshs. 124,416/= for the second ratoon crop. On the yields, the court was rightly guided by the expert report on yields prepared by the KESREF. There was no dispute on the size of the land. The price of the cane was as per the Cane Schedule prepared by the Sugar Directorate and which was produced in evidence. The court took into account the relevant deductions. The court did not therefore err in its computation of the value of the second ratoon crop.
10. Having dealt with the issues raised in this appeal, and given that none of the grounds of appeal is successful, the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.
Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at MIGORI this 5th day of March 2020.
A. C. MRIMA
JUDGE
Judgment delivered in open court and in the presence of: -
Mr. Oyagi, Counselinstructed by the firm of Oyagi, Ong’uti, Magiya & Co. Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Odhiambo Kanyangi,Counsel instructed by the firm of Messrs. Odhiambo Kanyangi & Company Advocates for the Respondent.
Evelyne Nyauke – Court Assistant