Riley Falcon Security Limited v County Government of Siaya (Civil Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 16142 (KLR) (7 November 2025) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court evaluated whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding sum of Kshs21,066,010.56 plus interest as claimed, based on the uncontroverted evidence of contractual obligations and non-payment.
• The court considered whether the Defendant breached the contractual agreement by failing to make payments as stipulated, leading to the Plaintiff's claim for damages and interest.

Holdings

• The court found the Defendant breached the contract by systematically defaulting on monthly payments, chronic non-payment from 2014–2023, and failing to honour payment undertakings. However, no general damages for breach were awarded, as the contract lacked a clause specifying such damages. Instead, the court allowed interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit.
• The court determined that a valid and enforceable contract existed between Riley Falcon Security Limited and the County Government of Siaya, evidenced by tender documents, executed contracts, and performance records. The Defendant admitted the contract's existence in their defence, and the Plaintiff's evidence remained uncontroverted as the Defendant failed to present witnesses or documents to challenge it.
• The court rejected the Defendant's argument that a partial payment of Kshs15,082,965.25 reduced the outstanding amount, noting the Defendant provided no breakdown of payments. The Plaintiff's claim for Kshs21,066,010.56 (minus the partial payment) was upheld as the Defendant failed to dispute the Plaintiff's documented evidence.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The court relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, noting the defendant's acceptance of security services without contesting the contract's validity. This was cited in Baber A Mawji v United States International University & Another [1976] 16 KLR, holding that a party cannot later deny a contract's existence after knowingly accepting its benefits.
• Contract formation was affirmed through tender award notifications (15/5/2014) and subsequent signed agreements (1/6/2014). Renewals via formal letters (20/10/2016, 11/12/2019) demonstrated mutual obligation, fulfilling contract law requirements under the Law of Contract Act (Cap 23).
• The court applied the principle that unchallenged plaintiff evidence satisfies the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. This was based on the defendant's failure to present counterevidence or witnesses, as established in cases like Phelista Mukamu Makau v Elizabeth Mulumba [2015] eKLR and Stanley Mwangi Gachugu & Another v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd [2019] eKLR.

Precedent Name

• Janet Kaphiphe Ouma & Another v Marie Stopes International (Kisumu HCCC No. 68 of 2007)
• Stanly Mwangi Gachugu & Another v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd [2019] eKLR
• Baber A Mawji v United States International University & Another [1976] 16 KLR
• Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd 1717 [1980] AC 827,848-849
• Drappery Empire v Attorney General (Nairobi HCC No. 2666 of 1996)
• Phelista Mukamu Makau v Elizabeth Mulumba [2015] eKLR
• Drippy Empire v Attorney General (Nairobi HCCC No. 2666 of 1996)
• Kenya Airways Ltd vs Satwant Singh Flora [2013] eKLR

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The court noted no contractual clause explicitly allowed the Plaintiff to claim general damages for breach. Instead, interest at court rates was awarded, relying on common law principles rather than contractual terms.
• The court analyzed the contract's payment terms, which required monthly payments after invoice submission. The Plaintiff alleged systematic defaults, while the Defendant denied breach, citing exchequer delays and lack of served invoice evidence.
• The Plaintiff demonstrated contract renewals via formal requests from the Defendant (letters dated 20/10/2016 and 11/12/2019). The Defendant did not dispute the renewals but argued they did not obligate them to the current claim.

Cited Statute

• Law of Contract Act
• Civil Procedure Rules

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The Defendant filed a defence dated 26th February 2024 wherein it denied the Plaintiff's claim and sought for its dismissal. The Defendant further denied the existence of any such contract or alleged breach thereof and sought for the dismissal of the suit with costs.
• I find the Plaintiff's evidence remained uncontroverted. The Defendant had the opportunity to contest the claim but failed to file any contrary documents or call witnesses so as to give their version of evidence.
• In view of the foregoing observations, it is my finding that the Plaintiff has proved its claim on a balance of probabilities. The same has merit and is allowed as prayed save only that the rate of interest shall be at court rates from the date of filing suit.

Damages / Relief Type