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

AMEDO CENTRE (K) LIMITED v JACKSON SIMIYU & another [2012] KEHC 5792 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5792 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
5792
Citation
[2012] KEHC 5792 (KLR)
Decided
14 September 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the judgment of the Senior Resident Magistrate A.M. OburaCoramA.M. Obura
Holding

The Plaintiff was not entitled to the award of damages for defamation. The removal of the machine from the Plaintiff's possession was not an act of repossession by the Defendants but was actually done by the guarantor third party acting independently.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Jackson Simiyu, bought a sewing machine on hire purchase terms from the Defendant, AMEDO CENTRE (K) LIMITED. Deductions were made from the Plaintiff's salary for 15 months, but for five months, the deductions were not made. The Plaintiff's guarantor, Albert Juma, was sued by the Defendant for the unpaid amount.

Issues

  1. Was the Plaintiff entitled to the award of damages for defamation?
  2. Was the removal of the machine from the Plaintiff's possession an act of repossession by the Defendants?

Reasoning

The court found that the removal of the machine was not an act of repossession by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was in default of the hire purchase agreement for five months, and the Defendant was justified in pursuing the guarantor for payment. The Plaintiff's actions in not making the monthly payments were not explained, and there was no proof of malice.

Outcome

Affirmed

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