Court Orders Al Husnain Motors to Refund Buyer KSh2.38 Million Over Faulty Lorry

A businessman who invested KSh4 million in a commercial lorry hoping it would earn its own purchase price has finally won a decade-long court battle after Kenya’s Court of Appeal in Kisumu ruled that the dealer must refund more than KSh2.38 million.

The three-judge bench upheld earlier decisions against Al Husnain Motors Ltd, finding that the company failed to repair the defective Isuzu lorry despite repeated complaints from buyer Joseph Matagaro Michira.

The judges concluded that the prolonged breakdown left the vehicle incapable of generating income, making it impossible for Michira to continue paying monthly instalments as agreed.

The ruling not only ends a dispute that began shortly after the vehicle was bought in 2013 but also reinforces an important legal principle.

Businesses cannot escape contractual obligations after selling defective goods, while parties appearing before court must remain consistent with the positions they take in their pleadings.

Broken Promise

The dispute began in November 2013 when Michira bought an Isuzu lorry, registration KBX 648D, from Al Husnain Motors for KSh4 million.

He paid KSh2.1 million upfront and agreed to clear the balance through monthly instalments funded by income from the vehicle’s transport business.

For a short period, everything appeared to proceed normally. Then the lorry developed serious mechanical problems.

Court records show Michira repeatedly contacted the dealer seeking repairs under Clause 9 of their agreement, which required major repairs to involve the seller.

Mechanics were sent several times, including attempts to revive the engine using the vehicle’s computer system.

None of the repairs lasted. Within weeks, the lorry stalled again before becoming completely unusable.

Without a functioning vehicle, the business generated no income.

The instalments stopped, and what began as an ordinary commercial purchase evolved into years of courtroom battles.

Court Battle

Michira maintained that he had honoured his obligations by promptly informing the dealer whenever the lorry developed serious defects.

He argued that Al Husnain Motors breached the agreement by failing to repair or replace the vehicle despite repeated requests.

He therefore sought either a replacement lorry or a refund of the money he had already paid.

The company rejected those claims.

It argued the vehicle became defective because of the buyer’s carelessness.

It further accused Michira of defaulting on instalments, failing to present the vehicle for inspection and attempting repairs without authority.

Even if the vehicle had faults, the company insisted it had no obligation to refund the purchase price.

The Busia Magistrate’s Court sided with Michira after finding he had properly notified the seller about the defects.

The court concluded that Al Husnain Motors failed to repair the lorry within a reasonable period, making it impossible for the buyer to continue performing his side of the bargain.

Instead of treating the missed instalments as the primary breach, the magistrate found they resulted directly from the seller’s earlier failure to provide a working commercial vehicle.

The contract had therefore been frustrated, requiring both parties to be restored as nearly as possible to their original positions.

The court ordered the company to refund KSh2.381 million, directed Michira to return the lorry upon payment, and awarded him costs.

The High Court later dismissed the company’s appeal after finding no error in that reasoning.

Legal Lessons

Still dissatisfied, Al Husnain Motors moved to the Court of Appeal.

The company first faced an unexpected procedural hurdle after Michira argued the appeal should be struck out because the Notice of Appeal cited the wrong judgement date.

The judges acknowledged that a Notice of Appeal is the foundation of an appeal but held that a clerical mistake alone cannot invalidate proceedings where no prejudice has been suffered.

“A notice of appeal is an anchor document upon which the jurisdiction of this Court is founded and flows from,” the bench observed before treating the wrong date as a harmless typographical error.

Turning to the substance of the appeal, the judges stressed that second appeals focus only on questions of law, not fresh disputes over evidence.

READ ALSO: Court Orders Mombasa Car Dealer to Refund KSh 670,000 After Buyer Rejects ‘Zero Mileage’ Toyota

They found both the Magistrate’s Court and the High Court had properly evaluated the evidence and correctly concluded that Michira repeatedly notified the dealer about the vehicle’s defects.

The Court also rejected Al Husnain’s attempt to challenge cellphone message evidence for the first time on appeal because no objection had been raised during the trial.

Final Verdict

Perhaps the company’s biggest setback came from its own pleadings.

The judges noted that Al Husnain initially denied the existence of the sale agreement before later relying on that same agreement to accuse Michira of breaching Clause 9.

“The appellant was bound by his pleadings,” the Court held, reaffirming that litigants cannot abandon positions they deliberately adopted simply because the evidence later proves inconvenient.

Finding no legal error in either of the lower courts’ decisions, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs, leaving intact the order requiring Al Husnain Motors to refund KSh2.381 million.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.