Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistratePartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEMC 729 (KLR)

Stery Company Ltd v Board of Management Bukembe High School & another (Civil Suit E546 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 729 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court (Senior Resident Magistrate), Bungoma
18 August 2026
TOT.O. Omono
2,978 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court ordered a school to pay its supplier Kshs. 230,000 for furniture, rejecting a procurement-law defence raised too late and vaguely.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued for Kshs. 1,075,000/= being the contractual price of 100 lockers and chairs and 50 double deckers supplied to the Defendant school between 31st January 2023 and 6th February 2023 under an LPO dated 12th December 2022, together with costs and interest from 31st January 2023. The Defendant denied the debt, asserted any contract was with unauthorized persons, and alleged the procurement was marred by fraud and irregularities and contrary to the law, pleading that no tender process was undertaken. At trial, PW1 conceded he had no tender advert, award or acceptance letter but maintained the LPO was directly issued to him. DW1, the school's bursar, admitted the LPO was issued after the tendering process, that the goods were supplied, and that payments made were legal; he maintained Kshs. 845,000/= had been paid, leaving Kshs. 230,000/= outstanding, supported by payment vouchers signed by the Plaintiff. The court framed two issues: validity of the contract and the amount owed. It held the Defendant's PPADA-based defence failed because fraud, irregularity and illegality were not specifically pleaded with particulars as required by Order 2 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and submissions are not evidence. The court found a valid and enforceable contract and, on unimpeached signed payment vouchers, held the Defendant owed only Kshs. 230,000/=. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for Kshs. 230,000/= with interest at court rates from filing and costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the contract was unenforceable for contravention of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act

Holding

The Defendant did not specifically plead the particulars of fraud, irregularity or the statute contravened as required by Order 2 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, so it could not rely on the PPADA defence; the court declined to entertain it.

Reasoning

Order 2 Rule 4(1) requires matters such as fraud, illegality or any fact showing illegality to be specifically pleaded. The Defendant's Statement of Defence merely alleged irregularities, fraud and contravention of the law in general terms without particulars or naming the statute. Evidence and submissions on an unpleaded issue are otiose and would take the Plaintiff by surprise. DW1's own witness statement did not raise the PPADA issue, and he admitted the LPO was issued and payments made were legal.

p. 8
02

Whether a valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties

Holding

Yes - a valid and enforceable contract evidenced by the LPO dated 12th December 2022, invoices and delivery notes.

Reasoning

The Defendant admitted receiving 100 lockers and chairs and 50 double deckers and making part payment. DW1 conceded in cross-examination that the LPO was issued to the Plaintiff after the tendering process and confirmed the supplies. Since the PPADA defence failed on pleading grounds and DW1 admitted the payments made were legal, the contract stood as valid and enforceable.

p. 9
03

What amount is owed to the Plaintiff

Holding

Kshs. 230,000/= only.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff admitted receiving Kshs. 400,000/= during the suit but claimed a balance of Kshs. 675,000/=. DW1 produced payment vouchers signed by the Plaintiff showing he was owed Kshs. 230,000/= for lockers and chairs, and that payment for the double deckers was complete. Relying on Abdi Ali Dere, signed payment vouchers are confirmation of payment; the Plaintiff did not impeach them, so only Kshs. 230,000/= was found outstanding.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A party must specifically plead fraud, irregularities or illegality, including the specific statute contravened, before leading evidence or making submissions on that issue; evidence not supported by pleadings goes to no issue.
  • Submissions are not evidence and cannot be used to raise new issues or arguments.
  • A payment voucher signed by the payee can constitute evidence or confirmation of payment unless impeached.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment is entered against the Defendant for the sum of Kshs. 230,000/=
  2. 2.The sum of Kshs. 230,000/= awarded will accrue interest at court rate from the date of filing this suit till payment in full
  3. 3.The Plaintiff will have the costs of this suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over contractual claims (Plaint dated 23rd January 2025)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stery Company Ltd v Board of Management Bukembe High School & another (Civil Suit E546 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 729 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/729/eng@2026-08-18

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