Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtPartially AllowedPlaint dated 26th September 2019 (High Court Commercial Suit)

China Jiangxi Corporation for Economic and Technical Cooperation (Kenya) Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority & Another (as styled in the plaint; defendant a Kenyan limited liability company, interested party Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited)

High Court of Kenya
13 March 2020
2,188 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

#

If a tender process is fraudulent, the court will cancel the demand guarantee, protecting you from losing your bid bond.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a Chinese construction company operating in Kenya since 2012, sued a Kenyan limited liability company and Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (joined as interested party) by plaint dated 26th September 2019. It alleged that the defendant fraudulently induced it to bid for a tender for Executive Beach Villas at Mtwapa, Kikambala, requiring a Bid Bond of Kshs. 120,000,000 issued by the Bank. The tender was cancelled by email on 2nd September 2019, but the defendant then purported to award the tender to the plaintiff on 6th September 2019 and, on 25th September 2019, demanded payment under the guarantee alleging failure to provide a performance bond within 14 days. The plaintiff alleged the property was not registered in the defendant's name, that the purported financier Abu Dhabi Sky was non-existent, and that the entire tender was a scheme to defraud it of the Bid Bond. The defendant did not file a defence; interlocutory judgment was entered on 17th January 2020 and the suit proceeded to formal proof before Majanja J on 13th March 2020, the defendant's counsel being absent when the matter was called out. PW1, Mr Hi Wei, testified and produced documents. The court found the guarantee was called after the original tender had been cancelled, that the fresh negotiations and purported award never resulted in an executed contract, and that the tender's purpose was to defraud the plaintiff of the Bid Bond. The plaint was allowed: the guarantee dated 26th August 2019 was cancelled and the defendant ordered to bear the costs. The injunction prayers were held overtaken by events, and damages were not awarded as special damages were neither pleaded with particularity nor proved.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff proved fraud in the tender process and the calling of the Bid Bond

Holding

The court found the tender was a creation designed to defraud the plaintiff of the Bid Bond and that the claim was proved on a balance of probabilities.

Reasoning

The tender was cancelled on 2nd September 2019, yet fresh negotiations and a purported award followed without execution of a contract, after which the defendant demanded payment of the guarantee on 25th September 2019 for failure to provide a performance bond. The court found the sequence demonstrated the tender's purpose was to defraud the plaintiff of the Bid Bond.

p. 3
02

Whether the guarantee should be cancelled

Holding

The guarantee dated 26th August 2019 issued by Stanbic Bank was cancelled.

Reasoning

Having found the guarantee was called after the original tender had been cancelled and pursuant to a fraudulent scheme, the court allowed the plaint and cancelled the guarantee, thereby arresting the liquidation of the Bid Bond.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A demand guarantee called after the underlying tender has been cancelled, pursuant to a fraudulent scheme, will be cancelled by the court.
  • Special damages must be pleaded with particularity and proved to the required standard.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.GUARANTEE NO. xxxxxxxxx dated 26th August 2019 issued by STANBIC BANK KENYA LIMITED to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff is hereby cancelled.
  2. 2.The defendant shall bear the costs of this suit.
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court over the plaint dated 26th September 2019

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "China Jiangxi Corporation for Economic and Technical Cooperation (Kenya) Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority & Another (as styled in the plaint; defendant a Kenyan limited liability company, interested party Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited)", Case Analysis (2020). Plaint dated 26th September 2019 (High Court Commercial Suit). Source: 

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