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

CHARLES GICHANA ANGWENYI v NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CREDIT BANK LIMITED & another [2009] KEHC 1189 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1189 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1189
Citation
[2009] KEHC 1189 (KLR)
Decided
14 September 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from the original trial outcomeCoramD. Musinga, J.
Holding

The plaintiff is not entitled to judgment in the sum of Kshs. 4,426,266/= or cost of repair of the motor vehicle as claimed. The first defendant is estopped from enforcing its rights under the Hire Purchase Agreement due to its failure to secure the vehicle from vandalism.

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a hire purchase contract with the first defendant for a Nissan lorry. The plaintiff defaulted in payments and the first defendant repossessed the vehicle. The plaintiff claimed damages for the loss of the vehicle and costs of repair.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum of Kshs. 4,426,266/= or cost of repair of the motor vehicle as claimed.
  2. Whether the first defendant is estopped from enforcing its rights under the Hire Purchase Agreement due to its failure to secure the vehicle from vandalism.

Reasoning

The plaintiff breached the Hire Purchase Agreement, and equity does not permit a person to benefit from his own breach. The first defendant, having repossessed the vehicle, had the right to mitigate its losses by selling the vehicle, but failed to do so, leading to its vandalism.

Outcome

The plaintiff is discharged from any further obligations and/or liabilities under the Hire Purchase Agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit.

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