KCC 648/2006

This case involved a claim for damages as a result of a breach of contract obligations. There had been an initial contract with one obligation and a subsequent appendix with a different and contradictory obligation on the party being sued. This had meant there was insufficient evidence of causation and contradictions within the material documentary evidence.

Background

An individual filed a case against a trading centre and requested the court force them to pay compensation. The individual stated he had signed a contract with the trading centre on 10/05/2005 to supply him with 100,000 tons of cement and when the centre had failed to meet its commitments, they had signed an appendix to the contract on 4/4/2007 in which the individual agreed to import the cement from abroad on behalf of centre and each party would divide the profits between them. The centre failed again to meet its commitments and the individual suffered financial loss.

The court ruled that the trading centre should pay the individual compensation.

The trading centre and the individual appealed the ruling before the court of appeal (Appeal No: 3235/2008) and (Appeal No: 3260/2008). The court the rejected the appeals and upheld the ruling.

Decision