Court halts Sh48m awarded to Rwandan in JKUAT contract lawsuit

jkuat

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology entrance. JKUAT carries the bulk of non-guaranteed bank loans. 

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

The Court of Appeal has suspended a judgment of Sh48 million sought by a Rwandan against Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) arising from breach of contract following the closure of its Kigali campus.

The appellate court said the intended appeal by JKUAT was not frivolous and the public university should be given a chance to argue its case.

The university has maintained that it paid the Rwandan, Martin Higiro, and being compelled to pay a further $360,418 (about Sh48 million) would be unjust enrichment.

“On the nugatory aspect, we note that both parties acknowledge that the applicant is a public university funded by taxpayers and the amount involved is colossal,” said Justices Daniel Musinga, Abida Ali-Aroni and John Mativo.

Mr Higiro owned the building where the JKUAT campus was based before it was shut down, following a directive of then Education cabinet secretary Fred Matiang’i over poor performance and to cut costs.

Mr Higiro moved to the Commercial Court in Kigali and obtained a judgment in his favour for breach of contract.

The Rwandan later moved to the High Court in Kenya in May 2023 seeking the registration of the foreign judgment.

In a ruling on July 28, 2023, the court directed the judgment to be recognised.

JKUAT later filed an application seeking to quash the judgment but High Court judge Peter Mulwa dismissed it on April 26, 2024.

In the appeal, JKUAT said it had paid the entire sum to Mr Higiro and he would be unjustly enriching himself if allowed to execute the judgment and demand the payment.

Through lawyer Patrick Lutta, the university said it was apprehensive that the Rwandan might commence the execution process.

Mr Higiro opposed the application saying the sole purpose of the appeal was to frustrate him from enjoying the fruits of his judgment by bringing out issues that should have been canvassed from the beginning but the university chose to ignore the summons and the original case.

“The appellant contracted in a foreign country and decided to flee with outstanding obligations, a decree was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction as such it is only fair that the respondent be allowed to harvest the fruits of its judgment, which execution can only be efficient within the jurisdiction of this honourable court,” he said.

In the ruling in April, Justice Mulwa said JKUAT was duly served with court papers in the original court but chose not to participate in the court proceedings.

“Further, after receiving the notices of entry of judgment the applicant chose to ignore the same and did not at the very least exercise its right of appeal with regard to the said judgment. The applicant cannot, therefore, argue that it was never served with the process of the original court and this ground for setting aside equally fails,” said the judge.

PAYE Tax Calculator

Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.