SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

KABUITO CONTRACTORS LIMITED v KARURI CIVIL ENGINEERING (K) LIMITED [2005] KEHC 168 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 168 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
168
Citation
[2005] KEHC 168 (KLR)
Decided
3 May 2005
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for summary judgmentCoramMARY KASANGO
Holding

Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for kshs 2, 569, 600 plus costs and interest, with the balance of the plaintiff's claim of kshs 180, 000 to be tried.

Facts

The plaintiff, Kabuito Contractors Limited, sued the defendant, Karuri Civil Engineering (K) Limited, for the balance outstanding from the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of 816 tons of asphalt concrete mix. The defendant denied supplying the concrete mix and claimed it was in exchange for a contract with Eldoret Municipal Council.

Issues

  1. Defendant's denial of supplying the concrete mix
  2. Defendant's claim of an oral agreement with Eldoret Municipal Council

Reasoning

The court found the plaintiff's claim sufficient, except for the lack of local purchase order No. 4759, and denied the defendant's new issues in the reply affidavit.

Outcome

Judgment in favor of the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for kshs 2, 569, 600 plus costs and interest
  • Balance of the plaintiff's claim of kshs 180, 000 to be tried
  • Costs of the application dated 2nd November 2004 awarded to the plaintiff

Remedies

  • Judgment for kshs 2, 569, 600 plus costs and interest
  • Remainder of claim to be tried

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • Zola v Ralli brothers (1969) E.A. 691
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case