Mr Mungai Kinuthia, City Star Shuttle Co. Ltd and Beauty Wholesale (K) Ltd withdrew the product liability claim after their advocates reached an out-of-court settlement deal with the manufacturer.
The three plaintiffs were part of the 11 buyers who sued the vehicle manufacturer in 2017 claiming that the vehicles developed serious mechanical problems a few months after purchase.
The consent of the three plaintiffs to withdraw the suit is dated August 14, 2018, and has been endorsed by High Court judge David Majanja.
Toyota Kenya has secured a reprieve in court after its three customers who had sued over allegations of being sold mechanically faulty buses withdrew the suit.
Mr Mungai Kinuthia, City Star Shuttle Co. Ltd and Beauty Wholesale (K) Ltd withdrew the product liability claim after their advocates reached an out-of-court settlement deal with the manufacturer, local dealer Nairobi Hino, Tsusho Capital Kenya Ltd and the Kenya Bureau of Standards.
The three plaintiffs were part of the 11 buyers who sued the vehicle manufacturer in 2017 claiming that the vehicles developed serious mechanical problems a few months after purchase.
The 11 are owners of motor vehicle model Hino FC 500(the HINO Trucks) bought from either Toyota Kenya or Nairobi Hino. Tsusho Capital Kenya Ltd provided partial finance to purchase the vehicles.
The plaintiffs complained that the vehicles had manufacturer’s defects of a similar kind. The defects were allegedly in the engine and braking system. They wanted to stop the sale of the vehicles locally on claims that the buses were faulty.
The consent of the three plaintiffs to withdraw the suit is dated August 14, 2018, and has been endorsed by High Court judge David Majanja.
However, attempts by City Star Shuttle Co. Ltd to renounce the out-of-court deal entered between its advocate, Harrison Kinyanjui & Co Advocates and Toyota Kenya failed after the judge dismissed a request to decline adoption of the consent.
The reason the transport firm wanted to set aside the consent to withdraw the suit was that its advocate recorded the deal without its instructions.
Christopher Kamande, a shareholder of the company which operates a fleet of buses across various estates in Nairobi, told Justice David Majanja that the firm had not withdrawn its suit “unconditionally or otherwise”.
He asserted that the bus firm did not instruct the advocate to engage with any of the defendants in the suit to resolve the matter in order to record the consent.
But Justice Majanja noted that the firm did not deny the fact that it was at the material time when the consent was recorded, represented by the advocate.
"The Advocate on record for a party is his or her agent and thus has ostensible authority to compromise the suit. Where a suit has been compromised by consent, the court will only set aside the consent on the same grounds that a contract may be set aside such as fraud, mistake, misrepresentation and the like," stated the judge.
He ruled that "the mere fact that the advocate did not have express instruction does not affect the validity of the consent.”
"In other words, there is no reason for the court to decline to endorse the consent order which reflects the compromise by the parties," said Justice Majanja.
