Wanyama v Washolo (Commercial Case E008 of 2024) [2024] SCC 28 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant sold the Respondent a faulty fuel pump
Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant sold the Respondent a faulty fuel pump
The Respondent did not prove that the fuel pump was faulty; the pump had been inspected by CW3 before purchase and was working after installation
The Respondent instructed CW3 to inspect the pump before purchase and confirmed it was working. The Claimant's evidence was corroborated by CW2 and CW3 that the pump was in good condition and dispensed petrol well after installation, with the fault attributed to an electricity surge after possession. The Respondent led no evidence to prove the alleged fault.
Whether the Respondent was bound by the 'as-is' term in the fuel pump purchase agreement
Yes; the Respondent was bound by the express 'as-is' term and his counterclaim failed
It is a longstanding principle that courts do not rewrite contracts; parties are bound by their terms unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved. The Respondent did not plead any of these vitiating factors, so he was bound by the express as-is clause, and the counterclaim for Kshs. 100,000/= could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- Parties are bound by the terms of their contracts and courts cannot rewrite contracts unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Respondent is indebted to the Claimant the sum of Kshs. 80,000/= only
- 2.The sum of Kshs. 80,000/= to attract interest at court rate with effect from 01st December 2023 till payment in full
- 3.The Respondent's Counter Claim is dismissed with costs
- 4.The costs due to the Claimant assessed at Kshs. 2,000/= only
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court Act
Relief refused
#Respondent's Counterclaim for Kshs. 100,000/= on the ground that the fuel pump was faulty
The Respondent did not lead any evidence that the fuel pump was faulty; and the agreement expressly sold the pump on an as-is basis
Costs
Costs to the Claimant, assessed at Kshs. 2,000/= only; the Respondent's Counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Therefore, this court finds that the Respondent did not prove that the Claimant sold him a faulty fuel pump.
It is a longstanding principle of law that parties to a contract are bound by the terms and conditions thereof and that it is not the business of the Courts to rewrite such contracts.
a) A declaration is hereby made that the Respondent is indebted to the Claimant the sum of Kshs. 80,000/=(Kenya Shillings Eighty Thousand) only
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the agreement date, variously as 31st May 2023 and 01st May 2023
The judgment states 'The Claimant herein did not plead coercion, fraud or undue influence in his Response to the Claim' - this should read the Respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wanyama v Washolo (Commercial Case E008 of 2024) [2024] SCC 28 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Kitale SCC CC. No. E008 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2024/28/eng@2024-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.