DEPOSIT CASH

CMC Motors to pay client Sh2.5m for faulty tractor

Justice David Majanja rules in favour of James Kamau

In Summary

• “I have found the defendant (CMC) liable for supplying a defective tractor. The plaintiff (Kamau) is therefore entitled to the deposit paid to the defendant"

Justice David Majanja
Justice David Majanja
Image: /FILE

 

CMC Motors Group has been ordered to pay Sh2.5 million to a wheat farmer for supplying him with a defective tractor.

High Court Judge David Majanja ruled in favour of James Kamau ending a legal battle that has been pending in court since 2007.

 
 

The Sh2.5 million is deposit Kamau paid to the company when he bought the tractor and the judge held that he is entitled to it.

Majanja ordered that he be refunded.

“I have found the defendant (CMC) liable for supplying a defective tractor. The plaintiff (Kamau) is therefore entitled to the deposit paid to the defendant," Majanja ruled.

He added, “I, therefore, enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the Sh2,500,000 together with interest at court rates from the date of filing suit until payment in full.”

Kamau who is a large-scale wheat and barley farmer within Narok and Nakuru counties bought a tractor from the company.

The tractor was sold to him at Sh4,505,000 under a deferred payment agreement dated February 15, 2005. However, the tractor developed mechanical problems.

Kamau said he incurred loss and damage as a result.

 
 

In suit papers, he asked the court to compel the company to replace the faulty tractor with a brand new one of the same brand.

Alternatively, he wanted a refund of his deposit.

For the special damages, Kamau asked the court to award him a total of Sh8.4 million.

The tractor performed well but Kamau noticed that the temperature gauge was giving a constant warning sign.

In April 2006, he noted that the performance of the tractor was below par and informed CMC of the defects.

The defects included loss of power, regular drop in engine oil level, emission of excessive smoke through the engine breather, a short circuit on power take-off and four-wheel engagement switch, and spool valve failure.

CMC’s workshop manager in Nakuru upon learning of the defects sent a mechanic to check on the tractor.

The mechanic informed him the tractor was okay after clearing the radiator with high pressurized water.

The problems continued despite the defendant sending mechanics to the farm to check on the tractor.

Subsequently, Kamau wrote a letter on May 23, 2006 highlighting his concerns about the tractor and proposing it should be replaced and that the payments due to CMC be deferred.

In its reply, CMC denied selling him a defective tractor.

It stated that the tractor sold to Kamau was in sound and merchantable condition without any manufacturing defects as alleged.

Justice Majanja noted that the tractor started having problems within a period of four months after purchase.

“The defendant does not dispute the fact that it was taken for repair to its garage several times and attended to by the defendant’s mechanic in the field.”

“I am satisfied that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant sold him a defective tractor,” Majanja said.

 

Edited by P.O