Case ID:171242

Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd v Jezina Marowa Chavura [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Civil Appeal 9 of 2019

Parties:

Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd v Jezina Marowa Chavura

Date Delivered:

05 Mar 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

High Court at Migori

Case Action:

Judgment

Judge(s):

Antony Charo Mrima

Citation:

Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd v Jezina Marowa Chavura [2020] eKLR

Advocates:

Mr. Oyagi, Counsel instructed by the firm of Oyagi, Ong’uti, Magiya & Co. Advocates for the Appellant.

Mr. Odhiambo Kanyangi, Counsel instructed by the firm of Messrs. Odhiambo Kanyangi & Company Advocates for the Respondent.

Case History:

(Being an appeal from the judgment and decree by Hon. R. Odenyo Senior Principal Magistrate in Migori Magistrate's Civil Suit No. 2700 of 2015 delivered on 05/12/2018)

Court Division:

Civil

County:

Migori

Advocates:

Mr. Oyagi, Counsel instructed by the firm of Oyagi, Ong’uti, Magiya & Co. Advocates for the Appellant.

Mr. Odhiambo Kanyangi, Counsel instructed by the firm of Messrs. Odhiambo Kanyangi & Company Advocates for the Respondent.

History Docket No:

Civil Suit 2700 of 2015

History Magistrate:

Hon. R. Odenyo - Senior Principal Magistrate

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

History County:

Migori

Case Outcome:

Appeal dismissed

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MIGORI

[Coram: A. C. Mrima, J.]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2019

TRANS MARA SUGAR CO. LTD................................APPELLANT

versus

JEZINA MAROWA CHAVURA................................RESPONDENT

(

Being an appeal from the judgment and decree by Hon. R. Odenyo Senior

Principal Magistrate in Migori

Magistrate's Civil Suit No. 2700 of 2015 delivered on 05/12/2018)

JUDGMENT

1. On 17/09/2019 this Court gave directions in

Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019 Trans Mara Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Nelson Dedege Mbai.

One of those directions was that the judgment in the said appeal do apply to this appeal on similar issues. The judgment dealt with three issues.

2. The first issue was the effect of a contract not signed by the farmer on the execution part which was on the last page although the contract was signed by both the farmer and the miller at the foot of every single page. The second issue was the interplay between the contract and the

Sugar Act

on the duty of harvest the cane. The contract vested that duty on the farmer whereas the

Sugar Act

vested the duty to harvest the cane on the miller. The third issue was whether transport charges attracted 16% VAT in the financial year 2013/2014.

3. This Court found the contract valid. It also found that the miller had the duty to harvest the cane since the contract could not override a statute. On the third issue this Court found that the 16% VAT on transport charges was applicable in the financial year 2013/2014. I hence incorporate the said judgement herein by reference.

4. In this appeal, the issue of the unsigned contract was raised. The issue of the duty to harvest the cane was also raised. As stated, the two issues in this appeal were settled in

Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019

(supra). It is of essence to note that the contract between the parties herein was entered on 22/03/2011.

5. Following the finding on the Appellant’s duty to harvest the mature cane in

Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2019

(supra), the Appellant was in breach of the contract.

6. In the face of such breach the Respondent was entitled to compensation. In

Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Joseph O. Onyango (2017) eKLR

I found that once a farmer proves that the Miller failed to harvest the plant crop at maturity then the farmer is entitled to the proceeds of the plant crop as well as the ratoon crops subject to the pleadings. Equally, when a Miller fails to harvest the first ratoon crop then the farmer is entitled to compensation for the first and second ratoon crops subject to the contract.

7. The foregone is however subject to the legal position that disputes based on breach of contracts are subject to the principles of

remoteness

,

causation

and

mitigation

. However, the principles must be proved for applicability. (See

Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2018 South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd vs. Rehema Joseph Nkonya

(unreported).

8. In this case the Respondent prayed for the proceeds of the second ratoon crop. Accordingly, and in view of the breach of the contract, the Respondent was entitled to such compensation.

9. The trial court awarded the sum of Kshs. 124,416/= for the second ratoon crop. On the yields, the court was rightly guided by the expert report on yields prepared by the KESREF. There was no dispute on the size of the land. The price of the cane was as per the Cane Schedule prepared by the Sugar Directorate and which was produced in evidence. The court took into account the relevant deductions. The court did not therefore err in its computation of the value of the second ratoon crop.

10. Having dealt with the issues raised in this appeal, and given that none of the grounds of appeal is successful, the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.

Orders accordingly.

DELIVERED, DATED and SIGNED at MIGORI this 5

th

day of March 2020.

A. C. MRIMA

JUDGE

Judgment delivered in open court and in the presence of: -

Mr. Oyagi, Counsel

instructed by the firm of Oyagi, Ong’uti, Magiya & Co. Advocates for the Appellant.

Mr. Odhiambo Kanyangi,

Counsel instructed by the firm of Messrs. Odhiambo Kanyangi & Company Advocates for the Respondent.

Evelyne Nyauke – Court Assistant