A case involving two construction companies in which an appeal court judge gave two contradictory rulings yesterday resurfaced for hearing before Milimani Commercial Courts.

Is this the matter you said there were two judgements. Justice Onyango Otieno asked, ‘i have never seen anything like this before,” he added. The Lawyer representing Niazsons Kenya Limited Rajinder Billing told the court that he had the two judgements.In one of the judgments, Justice Emmanuel O Kubasu of the court of Appeal allowed Naizsons to be paid Shs 609 million by China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya while he disallowed it in the other judgement.

Cecil Miller Jr. told the court in yesterday’s hearing that the matter arose from Court Summons dated February 16,1999 and an amended Notice of motion on March 18, 1999.
Miller said that the Niazsons prayers stated that the hearing proceedings and determination of a suit filed by it against his China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya Company in the Civil Suit Number 126 of 1999, be stayed. The lawyer said that the matter between the parties be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the Amended Act of 1995 and the Arbitration Ruling of 1999.

Miller said that China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya Company and the government of Kenya entered into an agreement for the construction of Hola- Garsen Road. China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya Company were the main contractors and engaged Niazsons as Sub-Contractors.
 

Lawyer Miller told the court that on May 12, 1996, China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya Company entered into a contract with the Kenya Government for the construction of the Hola-Garsen- Malindi Road.

On the same day, China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya Company entered into a subcontract with Niazsons under which Niazsons undertook to carryout the construction work of over 52 kilometers,on behalf of the main contractor. Miller said that by asking for payment of the two Completion Certificates Number One and Two, Nizsons Company wished to raise Shs 556,663,726 from his client despite several disputes arising out of the construction work.

The lawyer referred to the two where the difference in the number of days China Road and Bridge Corporation of Kenya Company allegedly delayed for 122 days and another where there was an alleged delay of 161 days.

Miller said that the Court of Appeal neither overruled the High Court nor did it challenge it. He said that his clients have always been willing to have the matter arbitrated.