Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal, Kisumu (second appeal from Senior Resident Magistrate's Court Kisumu, first appeal decided by Schofield J on April 27, 1983)· [1983] KECA 68 (KLR)

Mwai v Kenya Tourist Development Corporation [1983] KECA 68 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
8 December 1983
2,258 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a corporation is not liable for a hotel manager's orders unless you can prove the manager was actually its agent, or that it ratified the deal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant sued Kenya Tourist Development Corporation before the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Kisumu for Kshs 13,000, being twenty-six deliveries of red soil ordered by Oluoch, the manager of Homa Bay Hotel, for flower beds. The magistrate found the deliveries were made and that Oluoch was the corporation's agent. The High Court (Schofield J) allowed the corporation's first appeal, holding that Oluoch was not the corporation's agent, that the corporation had not held him out as such, and that there was nothing to ratify. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal. Kneller JA, in a draft judgment agreed to by Hancox JA and Platt Ag JA, held that the hotel was owned by Homa Bay Hotels Limited and managed by African Tours and Hotels Limited, so neither Oluoch nor those companies were agents of the corporation, which was merely a shareholder. Relying on Keighley, Maxsted & Co v Durant, the court held that an agent for an undisclosed principal may bind that principal only within actual authority, and that the corporation's correspondence could not ratify an order it had never authorised. The court further held that agency was not pleaded and that no estoppel could arise absent underlying or past arrangements. The High Court orders were upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Agency and ostensible authority of the hotel manager

Holding

The corporation did not hold out Oluoch as its agent; he was employed by African Tours and Hotels Limited, the managing agents, and no actual, implied authority or agency of necessity was proved.

Reasoning

Oluoch was employed by African Tours and Hotels Limited, which managed Homa Bay Hotel on behalf of its owner, Homa Bay Hotels Limited, in which the corporation was merely a shareholder. The corporation neither owned the managing agents nor held out Oluoch as its agent. Since Oluoch gave no evidence, why he directed the appellant to the corporation could not be established, and no actual, implied authority or agency of necessity was proved.

p. 4
02

Ratification of an undisclosed principal's contract

Holding

The corporation's letters could not ratify an order it had not authorised; ratification of a contract made on behalf of an undisclosed principal outside actual authority is contrary to principle.

Reasoning

The corporation's correspondence invited the appellant to supply supporting documents but never admitted liability. On the authority of Keighley, Maxsted & Co v Durant, an agent for an undisclosed principal can bind that principal only within actual authority, and nothing incapable of ratification can be ratified. The letters may have misled the appellant, but they did not create agency or ratify the manager's order.

p. 2
03

Estoppel based on prior conduct and payment of other transporters

Holding

There were no underlying or past arrangements on which estoppel or ratification could operate; other transporters were paid by the hotel company, not the corporation.

Reasoning

The evidence showed the corporation had never before paid for sand supplied to the hotel and would only enter written contracts for capital expenditure; if any requisition had been made, payment would have come from Homa Bay Hotels Limited. Payments to other transporters were for later deliveries recorded in hotel records. The corporation's assistance to complainants was intended to persuade the hotel management to pay justified claims, not an admission of liability.

p. 3
04

Pleading of agency

Holding

Agency was not specifically pleaded in the plaint and therefore was not an issue before the courts.

Reasoning

The plaint was drawn by the appellant's advocate and claimed only for work done to the corporation; agency and ratification were raised only in submissions in the Court of Appeal. A party cannot succeed on a cause of action not pleaded, so even if the evidence could support agency, it was not an issue in the suit.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An agent of an undisclosed principal can act only within the scope of his actual authority; conduct that is not capable of ratification cannot be ratified by the alleged principal.
  • Correspondence from a body that merely misleads a claimant into thinking it will entertain a claim cannot operate as ratification of an order made by the manager of a separate entity.
  • Shareholding in a company does not make a shareholder liable for the contracts of that company or its servants; the suit should have been brought against the company which owned the hotel.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.The respondent is awarded the costs of this appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya, Kisumu
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over appeals from the High Court (Kenya Tourist Development Corporation is a body corporate subject to ordinary civil appeal process)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwai v Kenya Tourist Development Corporation [1983] KECA 68 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1983). Court of Appeal, Kisumu (second appeal from Senior Resident Magistrate's Court Kisumu, first appeal decided by Schofield J on April 27, 1983). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1983/68/eng@1983-12-08

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.