The Judiciary has been ordered to pay Lavington Security Limited which offered security to the Judiciary buildings and judges residents over Sh 37 million for breach of contract.
Justice Alfred Mabeya said that the evidence on record is clear that the Judiciary delayed to settle the invoices on time adding that it paid part of the claim after the suit had been filed.
The judge found that the defendant is liable to pay interest on the delayed amount.
“Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff has proved its case to the required standard and judgment is hereby entered in its favor,” ruled the court.
Judge added that the security company had pleaded and proved a total sum of Sh 19,859,709.30 as interest due as at the date of filing fees. He said that amount was allowed as there was proof of delayed payment and the principal sum shall continue to attract interest at the rate of 14% per annum.
The court ruled Sh 5,171,375.68 for services rendered at the court’s premises together with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum from 5th August 2018 until payment in full; Sh 12,696,527.70 together with interest thereon at 14% from 5th August 2018 until payment in full and Sh 19,859,709.30 being interest accrued on the principal sum before the filing of the suit.
The security company sued the Judiciary saying that on diverse dates between January 2015 and October 2017 the company and Judiciary entered into contract agreements by which the company supplied security services to the Judiciary at a quarterly consideration of Sh 59,438,400.
The company further claimed that in pursuance of the said contract agreements, it rendered the aforesaid services in accordance with the contracts and to the defendant’s satisfaction.
However, the Judiciary defaulted in payment of part of the agreed contract price as a result of which there was due and owing from the defendant a sum of Sh 52,294,649 together with interest.
In response, the Judiciary denied the claims by the security firm alleging that the contract agreement violated the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and was therefore null and void ab initio.
The court heard that even if the contract was valid, the security company failed or neglected to supply the services for which the contract was entered into.
According to the Judiciary, the suit was incompetent, bad in law, fatally defective and an abuse of the process of the court.
