- The company sold two plots situated in Kilifi to Wangendo for Sh4.5 million.
- Despite Wangendo paying the full amount for the plots the company failed to honour its part of the bargain.
Image: FILE
A private company has been directed to pay Sh6.8 million to a woman over the failed sale of two plots in Kilifi.
Judge David Majanja dismissed an appeal by Amesnet Enterprises and two others directing payment of the money owed to Susan Wangendo.
The judge upheld the decision of the lower court in his judgment dated July 30.
“I affirm the trial magistrate’s decision as it was simply a reflection of the parties’ intention in the refund agreement. Further, and as I have held, there is no plea in the defence that the interest was unreasonable or unconscionable to the extent that the court was called upon to intervene.”
The lower court had ordered Amesnet Enterprises, James Mbugua and Janet Macharia to pay Wangendo Sh6.8 million.
The company and Wangendo entered into an agreement on August 30, 2011. The company sold two plots situated in Kilifi to Wangendo for Sh4.5 million.
Despite Wangendo paying the full amount for the plots, the company failed to honour its part of the bargain. This prompted Wangendo to demand a refund of the money paid.
The company and Wangendo then entered into another agreement on August 5, 2016 for a refund of the money, which together with interest came to Sh7.8 million.
The company only refunded Sh1 million and this forced Wangendo to file a case seeking full recovery of the remaining Sh6.8 million.
The company on its part said the purchase price was Sh4.5 million and that’s what is remaining.
Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court the company filed an appeal.
The company and the other two in their statement of defence challenged the validity of the refund agreement by stating that it was entered into under duress, coercion and intimidation.
They alleged that they did not execute it out of their free will.
Mbugua and Macharia admitted that they personally guaranteed to pay the outstanding amount to Wangendo and that by the time of giving evidence, the sum of Sh6,875,000.00 was still outstanding.
The judge noted that there was no evidence of duress and unreasonableness or oppressive conduct on the part of Wangendo.
“My review of the evidence on record shows that there is no evidence that the appellants were subjected to any duress, that they protested the alleged duress, coercion or intimidation or that they took any legal recourse or remedy to arrest the threats or that they took any steps after signing the refund agreement to avoid it.”
Edited by Henry Makori