Quick Mart Limited lost its case against Wells Fargo Limited over a KSh 14,918,750 shortfall resulting from a money transit loss.
According to a court ruling delivered by Justice Fred Mugambi, Quick Mart sued Wells Fargo after KSh 94.9 million collected from its outlets on November 4 and 5, 2023, went missing in transit to Family Bank.
“The plaintiff avers that on or about the 4th and 5th days of November 2023, the defendant collected a total sum of Kshs.94,918,750/ from its various outlets, which monies were, in the ordinary course of business, to be deposited at Family Bank. The plaintiff asserts that the said monies were unfortunately never deposited as required, and upon enquiry the defendant confirmed that the monies had been lost while in transit,” read part of the ruling.
The company argued that the loss caused a sudden cash flow deficit, forcing it to secure a KSh 95 million loan from Family Bank.
Meanwhile, Quick Mart accused Wells Fargo of breaching the contract and sought to recover the full amount, including interest and costs.
Court Rules Against Quick Mart and Wells Fargo
Justice Mugambi ruled that Wells Fargo’s liability was contractually capped at KSh 80 million for the single consignment in question.
Also Read: High Court Sentences Nicholas Macharia to Death for Killing Minor
He also noted that this amount had already been paid to Quick Mart, and the retailer’s claim for the remaining KSh 14,918,750 was therefore dismissed.
“Accordingly, and for the reasons set out above, I find that the defendant’s liability was contractually capped at Kshs.80,000,000/= in respect of the loss arising from the single consignment in question. It is admitted that this sum has already been paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s further claim for Kshs. 14,918,750/= is therefore dismissed to the extent that it exceeds the contractual limit,” read part of the ruling.
The judge also dismissed Wells Fargo’s counterclaim for lack of evidence.
“Equally, the defendant’s claim for set-off in the sum of Kshs. 15,738/ is dismissed for want of proof.”
Quick Mart Loses Case Against Wells Fargo
Justice Mugambi further highlighted that the liability cap applied to the total consignment, not to individual collections.
As a result, Quick Mart’s argument that each collection should be treated separately to bypass the cap was rejected.
Also Read: Naivas, Quickmart and Carrefour Change Tact as China Village Sends Strong Signal
During the trial at the High Court of Kenya Commercial and Tax Division, Justice Fred Mugambi examined whether Wells Fargo was liable to pay the full amount claimed by Quick Mart.
The court also considered Wells Fargo’s counterclaim for unpaid service fees of KSh 15,738, which the company alleged were owed for services rendered to Quick Mart.
However, both parties’ additional claims were dismissed, and no order for costs was made.
