A building contractor has sued the Kenya Maritime Authority (KMA) seeking Sh444 million in balance payment and interest for a job in which it constructed the head office of the State agency in Mombasa.
Epco Builders Ltd seeks to be paid Sh360 million due to it under the terms of the agreement for setting up of the office block and Sh84.1 million in accumulated interest.
The building and civil engineering company says KMA engaged it for development of an office block in Mombasa. Epco Builders Ltd said the agreed contractual price for the works was Sh1.8 billion inclusive of Value Added Tax.
It says it carried out and completed the works, and on November 29, 2023, KMA’s project manager issued its certificate (final payment) certifying that Sh360 million was due to it from the maritime agency.
Epco Builders Ltd says that under the conditions of the contract, which formed part of the agreement, the defendant (KMA) was required to pay it the money certified as due (in the final payment) within 60 days from November 29, 2023, the date on which the certificate was issued.
The firm wants KMA to pay it Sh84.1 million in respect of interest on the principal amount of Sh360 million due from January 28 last year to July 31 this year.
This, it says, is at the rate of three percentage points above the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) average rate for base lending prevailing as of January 28. “Despite the demand made and notice of intention to file the case, KMA has failed or neglected to make any payment or admit liability,” the suit documents state.
According to the plaintiff, there is no other case pending between the parties, and there have been no previous proceedings in any court between them over issues subject to the case.
Epco Builders Ltd also wants further interest on the principal amount certified due and owing from August 1 this year to the date in full at a rate of three percentage points above CBK’s average rate for base lending prevailing as from January 28, 2024.
Epco Builders Ltd director Ramji Varsani, in his statement of evidence filed, says he seek a judgement against KMA with further interest, costs of and incidental to the case, and interest at court rates. “There is and can be no dispute as to the aforestated amounts due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff,” states Mr Varsani in his statement.
