A Milimani Commercial Court has dismissed a Sh6.8 million claim by businessman Omar Salim Baslum against Tunasco Insaat Anonim Sirketi Co. Limited over alleged supplies of fuel, hydraulic oil and other petroleum products.
Chief Magistrate Thomas Nzyoki ruled that Baslum had not proved that the goods were delivered to Tunasco or that a contractual relationship existed between the two parties. The court dismissed the case and awarded costs to Tunasco.
Baslum had sought Sh6,810,626.50, claiming that Tunasco ordered hydraulic oil, diesel and petrol between April 2017 and October 2018.
He said the alleged supplies were worth Sh9.81 million and were made through several deliveries. According to his claim, Tunasco paid Sh3 million on July 10, 2018, leaving the balance of Sh6.81 million.
Baslum also relied on a letter dated December 24, 2021, which he argued amounted to an acknowledgement of the alleged debt.
Tunasco disputed the claim. The company denied having conducted business with Baslum and maintained that it had no obligation to pay the amount sought.
The court examined the invoices, order books and delivery notes presented by Baslum but found that they did not establish that the goods had actually been delivered to Tunasco.
Nzyoki said properly received and acknowledged delivery notes would have helped demonstrate that ownership of the goods had passed from the seller to the alleged buyer.
The magistrate also rejected the argument that Tunasco’s 2021 letter constituted an admission of the debt.
The court found that Baslum had failed to establish privity of contract, a direct contractual relationship between the parties that would make Tunasco liable for the alleged supplies.
“I find and hold that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant,” Nzyoki ruled.
The court therefore rejected the claim and ordered Baslum to meet Tunasco’s legal costs.
Following the ruling, Tunasco said it intended to pursue further legal remedies over what the company described as commercial losses and reputational harm arising from the dispute. Those are the company’s claims and were not findings by the court in the ruling reported here.
About the Author
