Man Who Paid Ksh 2.1M for Ksh 4M Lorry Takes Seller to Court After It Became Unusable

The Court of Appeal has delivered a ruling on contract disputes, warning parties against taking contradictory positions in court.

The court dealt with a dispute involving the sale of an Isuzu lorry for Ksh 4 million in Al Husnain Motors Ltd v Joseph Matagaro Michira (Civil Appeal No. E152 of 2021).

The buyer had paid Ksh 2.1 million towards the vehicle before it developed serious mechanical problems.

According to the case, the buyer notified the seller about the mechanical problems through text messages and sought repairs.

However, the vehicle remained unusable for a long period, while the buyer fell behind on the agreed instalment payments.

The dispute eventually moved to court, with the seller accusing the buyer of breaching the agreement.

The seller also argued that the buyer had dealt with the vehicle in a manner that went against the terms of the agreement.

Seller’s Contract Breach Argument Challenged in Court

The case took an interesting turn because the seller had previously pleaded that there was no agreement between the parties.

The Court of Appeal found that the seller could not deny the existence of the agreement and later rely on that same agreement to accuse the buyer of breaching one of its clauses.

The court specifically rejected the attempt to rely on clause 9 after the seller had taken the position that no agreement existed.

In simple terms, a party cannot tell the court that a contract does not exist and then use that same contract when it becomes convenient to its case.

Also Read: Court Rules General Election Should Be Held Next Week

Court Upholds Findings on Vehicle Defects

The Court of Appeal also upheld the findings of the lower courts that the buyer had informed the seller about the vehicle’s mechanical problems.

The seller failed to sufficiently demonstrate the alleged breach by the buyer.

The court therefore found no reason to interfere with the concurrent factual findings made by the lower courts.

The seller also attempted to challenge cellphone evidence that had been presented during the trial.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument because the evidence had not been challenged when it was introduced before the trial court.

This served as another important lesson: parties should raise their objections at the appropriate stage of a case rather than waiting until a later appeal.

Also Read: Court Issues Directive on Sacking of Safaricom Boss

Second Appeals Focus on Points of Law

The Court of Appeal further stressed that a second appeal is generally concerned with questions of law.

It is not an opportunity for a party to reopen factual issues that have already been considered and determined by two lower courts.

The judges therefore declined to revisit the factual findings surrounding the vehicle, the reported defects and the parties’ conduct.

In the end, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates.

Court Hammer-Conclusion of ruling
PHOTO/EACC