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

WILFRED GITONGA (T/a Wilkel Traders Co) v BARCLAYS BANK KENYA LTD [2007] KEHC 642 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 642 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
642
Citation
[2007] KEHC 642 (KLR)
Decided
28 September 2007
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCommercial DisputePostureAppeal from a previous judgmentCoramH. P. G. WAWERU
Holding

The Plaintiff failed to prove his case against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities and is hereby dismissed. The Defendant also failed to prove its set-off against the Plaintiff and is hereby dismissed.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Wilfred Gitonga, approached the Defendant, Barclays Bank Kenya Ltd, to handle a letter of credit for his business, WILKEL TRADERS COMPANY. The Defendant's employee negligently cancelled the letter of credit, causing the Plaintiff to suffer financial losses.

Issues

  1. Was the Defendant liable for the cancellation of the letter of credit?
  2. Did the Defendant's action of 'returning' the letter of credit amount to cancelling it?
  3. Did the Plaintiff suffer any loss as claimed?
  4. Was the Plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought?
  5. Was the Defendant entitled to the set-off claimed?

Reasoning

The Defendant was not the issuing bank and did not have authority to cancel the letter of credit. The Defendant's action of 'returning' the letter of credit did not cancel it. The Plaintiff's losses were not proven, and he failed to mitigate his losses. The Defendant did not suffer any loss as a result of the Plaintiff's alleged negligence.

Outcome

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant's claims were dismissed.

Orders

  • Costs are to be borne by both parties.
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