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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 178 of 2011· [2015] KECA 288 (KLR)

Augustine M Siwa v Kerio Valley Development Authority [2015] KECA 288 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
29 October 2015
1,039 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot claim consultancy fees without proving the parties actually agreed on the amount, even if the work was done.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a second appeal to the Court of Appeal at Eldoret against the judgment of Karanja, J. in HCCA No. 5 of 2009, which had overturned a trial magistrate's judgment awarding the appellant KShs.720,000/= as consultancy fees for a feasibility study on livestock development in West Pokot and Turkana conducted in 2003 at the respondent's request. The trial magistrate had entered judgment for the appellant, but the High Court held there was no written contract, that it was not established how the claimed sum was arrived at, and that the appellant had not adduced sufficient evidence of entitlement to it. The Court of Appeal, comprising Maraga, Musinga and Gatembu Kairu, JJ.A., confined itself to questions of law under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The sole issue was whether a consultancy agreement existed and on what terms. The court found that although the study was admittedly carried out, there was no evidence that the parties agreed on the fees payable: the appellant's suggested sum of KShs.720,000/= was never accepted, the respondent instead paid KShs.42,000/= as facilitation fees, and the demand for the larger sum was made only after completion of the work and was denied. Holding that the learned judge could not be faulted, the Court of Appeal found no basis for interfering with the High Court judgment, dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondent, and thereby affirmed the decision below.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a consultancy agreement existed between the appellant and the respondent and whether KShs.720,000/= was payable

Holding

No consultancy agreement on the claimed fees was proved; the High Court was right to hold that the sum of KShs.720,000/= was not payable and the Court of Appeal declined to interfere.

Reasoning

The appellant and two employees of the respondent jointly conducted the feasibility study, but the evidence showed only that the appellant suggested a fee of KShs.720,000/= to some employees of the respondent, which was never agreed. The respondent had instead paid KShs.42,000/= as facilitation fees by imprest warrant. The request for payment of the larger sum was made only after completion of the work, in a letter dated 27th November 2003, and was denied by the Managing Director. With no agreed fee, the appellant could not discharge the burden of proving his claim.

p. 3
02

Scope of a second appeal to the Court of Appeal

Holding

A second appeal lies only on the grounds specified in section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act: that the decision is contrary to law, failed to determine a material issue of law, or involves a substantial procedural error possibly affecting the merits.

Reasoning

The court invoked section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to frame the limits of its review. As a second appeal from the High Court sitting as a first appellate court, the Court of Appeal does not revisit findings of fact but confines itself to questions of law. The court then applied that limited scope to the single legal issue of whether the learned judge erred in holding that no consultancy agreement existed, and found no error of law in that conclusion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal's consideration is confined to matters of law as set out in section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
  • A party claiming consultancy fees must prove the agreement and the agreed terms; performance of work alone does not establish entitlement to a specific fee where no agreement on fees is proved.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 72(1)
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
H.C.C.A. No. 5 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (second appeal from a decree passed in appeal by the High Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Augustine M Siwa v Kerio Valley Development Authority [2015] KECA 288 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/288/eng@2015-10-29

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