Court Orders Sony Sugar to Pay Farmer KSh27 Million After Botched Cane Harvest

The Court of Appeal found Sony Sugar liable for breaching three cane-growing contracts, delaying harvests and jeopardising future crops. But judges cut the compensation, rejected speculative claims and preserved a statutory penalty for unpaid cane deliveries.

South Nyanza Sugar Company has lost a major appeal against a farmer who accused it of mishandling three sugarcane contracts.

The Court of Appeal upheld findings that the miller breached its obligations to Ngina Gitiba.

It affirmed a revised principal award of KSh 27,039,168, representing losses from three cane-growing agreements.

However, the judges rejected parts of the original compensation package.

They ruled that some claims lacked sufficient proof, while others risked compensating the farmer twice.

In a judgement delivered on November 6, 2026, Justices Agnes Murgor, Abida Ali-Aroni and Joel Ngugi examined the disputes.

They found that Sony Sugar had failed to honour key harvesting and seed-cane obligations.

Delayed Harvests

The dispute arose from three contracts covering different sugarcane plots.

Under the agreements, Sony Sugar undertook to support production and purchase mature cane.

Gitiba’s complaints centred on delayed seed-cane delivery, late harvesting and alleged damage to her crops.

She also accused the company of harvesting selectively and leaving portions of mature cane standing.

Evidence presented at trial painted a troubling picture of the farm’s condition.

Agricultural officers testified that they observed burnt cane and its effects on the crop.

One officer, Dickson Onyango Otieno, visited the farm and prepared an agricultural report.

Another extension officer, Gisabo Chacha Mwita Daniel, corroborated evidence concerning the fire.

Sony Sugar challenged the farmer’s claims through two defence witnesses.

However, neither witness had visited Gitiba’s farm to assess its actual condition.

The appellate judges therefore weighed their general industry evidence against testimony grounded in direct observation.

They found the farmer’s evidence credible and supported by the circumstances.

Three Breaches

The court examined each contract separately before determining the company’s liability.

Under Contract A, Sony Sugar handled ploughing and harrowing, while Gitiba undertook furrowing and planting.

The court accepted that planting occurred between April 2 and April 19, 2012.

The crop should have matured around April 2014 under the contractual timeline.

Yet harvesting began only in September 2014, approximately five months later.

Weighbridge records confirmed deliveries in late September and early October.

The agricultural officer also reported burnt cane and selective harvesting during his September visit.

Crucially, Sony Sugar failed to produce the harvesting programme required under the agreement.

It also failed to establish contractual notices blaming Gitiba for poor farming practices.

Contract B presented a similar harvesting dispute. Although Gitiba prepared the land, the court found no unreasonable delay in seed-cane supply.

The crop was nevertheless harvested late and in stages. Weighbridge records showed deliveries continuing between September 2014 and March 2015.

Contract C involved a different failure. Gitiba had undertaken land preparation, but Sony Sugar failed to supply the promised seed cane.

A letter dated September 25, 2012, documented her complaint. The company did not prove that it had validly suspended or terminated the agreement.

The court consequently upheld liability across all three contracts.

KSh 27 Million

The biggest issue on appeal concerned how much compensation Gitiba deserved.

The judges relied on established appellate decisions involving similar sugarcane disputes.

These included South Nyanza Sugar Company Ltd v Mary Anyango, decided in 2024.

The ruling clarified the miller’s responsibility for arranging harvesting under comparable contractual terms.

The court also considered evidence on expected yields, cane prices and ratoon production. It used 100 tonnes per hectare for plant crops, then reduced yields for successive ratoons.

For Plot A, measuring 17.2 hectares, the court calculated KSh16,456,960. This covered the plant crop and two ratoons, using the relevant historical prices.

For Plot B, measuring 11.06 hectares, the calculation produced KSh10,582,208. Together, the two plots accounted for KSh27,039,168.

The judges adopted yields of 80 and 64 tonnes per hectare for successive ratoons. Those figures reflected evidence of declining yields, not a universal formula for every farmer.

The court also rejected Sony Sugar’s argument that Gitiba should have sold her cane elsewhere. The contract restricted sales or transfers without the miller’s written consent.

That restriction weakened the company’s attempt to shift responsibility onto the farmer.

No Double Recovery

The court refused to award projected earnings for Plot C because Gitiba never planted cane there.

It considered those future earnings speculative, despite the farmer’s preparatory work.

The judges also rejected separate farming and development expenses for Plots A and B.

Those costs were already reflected in the crop-value calculations, making another award duplicative.

A separate payment dispute also required attention. The High Court had awarded KSh2,670,042 for cane delivered under Contract B.

The appellate court found that this principal amount was already captured in the revised Plot B valuation.

It therefore disallowed a separate recovery of the same principal sum.

However, the judges preserved a statutory penalty for delayed payment. Under the repealed Sugar Act, millers faced a three per cent monthly penalty on qualifying unpaid deliveries.

The penalty applies to the KSh2,670,042 debt from the filing of the suit until payment.

The court also awarded interest on the aggregate principal sum at court rates from February 14, 2019.

The final award therefore stood at KSh27,039,168, excluding the applicable penalty and interest.

READ ALSO: Court Orders Kenya Power to Pay KSh15.9 Million to Meru Boy Who Lost Arm in Electrocution

The decision carries significance for growers dealing with delayed harvesting and unpaid deliveries.

Sony Sugar’s own website says the company serves approximately 25,000 farmers across four counties.

The ruling reinforces a central contractual principle: millers cannot control harvesting arrangements and then blame farmers for resulting losses.

The appeal partly succeeded on compensation but failed on liability. Each party was ordered to bear its own appeal costs.

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