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

Devani v Al-Karim Stores (MSET Nairobi E001 of 2022) [2023] KEMSET 4 (KLR) (Civ) (12 January 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KEMSET 4 (KLR) KEMSET
Read PDF
Court
KEMSET
Case number
4
Citation
[2023] KEMSET 4 (KLR)
Decided
12 January 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureClaim filed through the e-filing platform, matter proceeded for hearing, final orders issuedCoramHON. J. WERE, A. GIKUYA, A. KIBET
Holding

The respondent owes the claimant Ksh 83,010,32/= for goods delivered, and the claimant is entitled to Ksh 30,000/= in costs and prevailing court rates for interest.

Facts

The claimant, R H Devani Ltd, filed a claim for Ksh 88,010.32/= for goods supplied by the respondent, Al-Karim Stores, up to 2019. The claimant's witness testified, and the respondent admitted to incurring a business loss due to expired goods.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent owes the claimant Ksh 83,010,32/= for goods delivered.
  2. Whether there was an agreement between the claimant and the respondent regarding the handling of expired goods.
  3. Who bears the cost of the claim.

Reasoning

The claimant provided delivery notes and invoices, while the respondent admitted to incurring a business loss due to expired goods. The respondent did not provide evidence of an agreement on handling expired goods or the value of spoiled goods.

Outcome

The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant Ksh 83,010,32/=, Ksh 30,000/= in costs, and prevailing court rates for interest.

Orders

  • The respondent should pay the claimant Ksh 83,010,32/=.
  • The respondent should pay the claimant Ksh 30,000/= in costs.
  • The respondent should pay the claimant prevailing court rates for interest.

Remedies

  • Payment of Ksh 83,010,32/= to the claimant.
  • Payment of Ksh 30,000/= in costs to the claimant.
  • Payment of prevailing court rates for interest to the claimant.
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