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

David Karobia Kiiru v Laverage Company Ltd [2017] KEHC 5757 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5757 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
5757
Citation
[2017] KEHC 5757 (KLR)
Decided
6 April 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
Holding

The plaintiff was indeed in breach of the hire purchase agreement, and the defendant repossessed and sold the vehicle without due process.

Facts

The plaintiff, David Karobia Kiiru, claimed against the defendant, Laverage Company Ltd, for breach of a Hire Purchase Agreement. The plaintiff alleged that he had paid more than two-thirds of the agreed price but the defendant repossessed and sold the vehicle. The defendant denied repossessing the vehicle and claimed the plaintiff owed them Kshs.152,855.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was in breach of the hire purchase agreement
  2. Whether the defendant repossessed and sold the vehicle without due process

Reasoning

The defendant repossessed and sold the vehicle when the plaintiff had paid more than two-thirds of the hire purchase price, contrary to the Hire Purchase Act.

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff, with the defendant paying the plaintiff the sum of Kshs.498,334 with interest, and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of Kshs.498,334 with interest from the 7th February 2007 until payment in full.
  • The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendant.

Remedies

  • Payment of Kshs.498,334 with interest
  • Dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Hire Purchase Act, Cap 507 Laws of Kenya
Cases cited (1)
  • Silvester Momanyi Marube (Supra)
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case