15 Minutes Logistics Limited v Deckson Muma Moruri

contract were misapplied; and the purpose and import of the assessment conducted by the appellant was misunderstood. 4. There is no record, of directions being taken, for disposal of the appeal by way of written submissions. I have, however, seen written submissions by the appellant. The respondent did not appear at the trial court, and he never participated in the proceedings conducted there. 5. The principal complaint is that the trial court made an award that had not been sought in the pleadings. That award related to the return of the motorcycle to the respondent. Parties are bound by their pleadings, and courts decide matters based on the said pleadings. The court ought not grant reliefs outside of those sought, in the pleadings filed by the parties. 6. The only pleadings, that the trial court had before it, were those filed by the appellant. The respondent did not appear, nor file a defence. The only reliefs that the trial court could award were those that the appellant sought in the claim. As there was no response to the claim, there was no counterclaim, upon which the trial court could make orders in favour of the respondent, specifically for the subject motorcycle to be restored to him. The order, therefore, for return of the repossessed vehicle to the respondent, had no foundation. 7. The respondent has raised issues around breach of the hire purchase contract. The claim was founded on an alleged breach of the said contract. The orders or reliefs sought were to flow from the alleged breach of the contract. The purpose of the formal proof or the formal oral hearing, that was conducted by the trial court, was to afford an opportunity to the appellant to prove or establish breach of the said contract, to provide basis for grant of the reliefs sought. 8. Did the appellant establish breach of the hire purchase contract? I do not think it did. The appellant lodged, in the court record, 4 principal contract documents, being the processing fees agreement, dated 13th January 2020; a daily payment for 15 months document; notice to issue, dated 13th January 2020; and a hire purchase agreement, dated 13th January 2020. 9. The processing fees agreement required the respondent to deposit a sum of Kshs. 10,000.00, as expression of interest to purchase the motorcycle. It was refundable, but became non-refundable, in the event the respondent defaulted in the payment of the hire purchase instalments. The notice to issue was a certificate that the respondent had been given a motorcycle by the appellant, on 16th January 2020, and had agreed to observe the terms and conditions, under which the motorcycle was given to him. 10. The daily payments for 15 months’ document, which was undated, simply indicated that the respondent was expected to pay Kshs. 485.00 daily, for 15 months. It also set out the requirements, for the purpose of the processing of the hire purchase contract, namely: a processing fee of Kshs. 10,000.00, 2 guarantees, a copy of the national identity card of the respondent, passport photographs, Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) personal identification number (PIN) certificate, registered MPesa number, and the respondent’s MPesa statements for the last 6 months to 1 year. The hire purchase agreement, dated 13th January 2020, set out the terms and conditions of the contract, inclusive of the rights and obligations of the parties, the reliefs available, among others. 11. One interesting thing, about those documents, was that none of them stated the purchase price for the motorcycle, the subject of the hire purchase contract. None of them, including the hire purchase agreement itself, stated the price of the motorcycle. Secondly, none of them indicated, the period, in terms of date, when the payments were to commence, and when it was expected that the total amount would have been paid in full, that is the actual contract duration or period. The contract price and the duration of the contract were the basis of the contract, without these there really was not a clear https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18048/eng@2025-12-05 2

page 2 of 3

contract between the parties. Just how much, in total, was the respondent expected to pay, in terms of the hire purchase price, and within which period or duration? That is the essence of hire purchase. 12. Equally important is the fact that there was inadequate evidence on how much the appellant had received from the respondent, by way of hire purchase payments. There was an allegation that it had received Kshs. 188,055.00, leaving a balance of Kshs. 43,246.25. I call it an allegation because no concrete evidence was tendered. No statements of accounts were presented. No evidence, by way of MPesa statements, was presented, if the moneys were received, from the respondent, by that mode. The absence of documents on that, would mean that there was no proof of default, when taken into account in the light of the non-disclosure, in the contract documents, of the contract price, and the duration of the contract. 13. There was no evidence relating to the total amount that the respondent was required to pay, no evidence of the duration when he was supposed to pay it, no concrete evidence of what he actually paid, hence no evidence that he was actually in default. The hire purchase agreement, which ought to have been the basis of the contract, was very poorly drafted, in the sense that it left out the most critical terms, on the actual contract price, and the duration within which it was to be paid. 14. I agree with the trial court, on the claim for Kshs. 311,855.00 being unconscionable. It was calculated on the basis of Kshs. 485.00, which was claimed to be profit lost per day, or as a penalty for late payment. Yet, in the document titled “Daily Payments for 15 months,” the daily payment, of Kshs. 485.00, was not meant to be a penalty for late payment, but a daily instalment, towards the purchase price, payable within 15 months. There was no basis to claim it as a penalty for lost profits. Indeed, there was no basis for claiming it, after the appellant repossessed the motorcycle. The appellant could not have both the motorcycle and the amount of the instalments due, which, in any event, according to it, did not amount to Kshs. 311,855.00, but Kshs. 43,246.25. 15. Under the terms of the hire purchase agreement, upon default, the respondent was entitled to certain rights before repossession, inclusive of a grace period, within which to pay the amount due. No evidence was adduced, with relation to whether those rights were honoured or respected, and afforded to the respondent. Were notices ever given to the respondent? No evidence, relating to those issues, was adduced. Without such evidence, there could probably be no basis for finding that there was breach of contract. 16. From the material that I see before me, I find and hold that there was no material upon which the trial court could find in favour of the appellant. The case, in the claim, was not proved. The appeal herein cannot, in the circumstances, have any merit. It is for dismissal, and I hereby dismiss it. There shall be no orders on costs, given that the respondent did not participate in the proceedings, both here and at the court below. DELIVERED, VIA EMAIL, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT BUSIA, ON THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. WM MUSYOKA JUDGE Mr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant, Busia. Mr. Michael Onyango, Court Assistant, Milimani, Nairobi. Advocates Mr. Karanja, instructed by Harry Karanja & Company, Advocates for the appellant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18048/eng@2025-12-05 3

page 3 of 3