Onix Computer Services, a firm associated with Machakos Governor Wavinya Ndeti two weeks ago lost a lawsuit in which they were seeking compensation for lost computers worth millions of shillings.
The company had filed a suit at the Milimani Commercial Court, where they prayed for special damages for the loss of office machines amounting to Ksh. 2,758,000, loss of goodwill of Ksh. 3,000,000, the present value of assets of Ksh. 5,507,560.52, and damages for the loss of business amounting to Kshs. 19,823,411.38.
In an affidavit filed by the director, she claimed that her company (Onix Computer Services) was the tenant of View Park Towers in Nairobi, while the NSSF board was the legal owner of the premises and its landlord. She further claimed that NSSF’s agents in charge of security, without authorization from her office, carried away assorted computers and other items from her premises valued at Ksh. 2,758,400. As a result of the said actions of the NSSF Board of Trustees, she contends that her firm incurred a loss of business valued at Ksh. 19,823,411.38 resulting from the loss of assets. During the trial, Onix Computer Services called two witnesses to testify. PW1 was Wavinya Ndeti, a director of Onix Computer Services.
However, NSSF, in a quick rejoinder, averred that it had employed a security firm (Gillys Security and Investigations Limited) to provide security services at the premises. NSSF claimed that Onix Computer Services was merely looking for an excuse not to pay the huge rent arrears that they accumulated, which it would seek to recover. NSSF further claimed that Onix Computer Services was responsible for the theft of its property and is not entitled to compensation by the NSSF Board of Trustees.
The ruling by Judge J.W.W. Mongare dated September 4, 2023, reads in part, “I note that the plaintiff has not provided proof of the cost of the stolen items, which could be through purchase documents such as receipts. I therefore find that the plaintiff has not proved its entitlement to the special damages that are claimed in the plaint.”.
The final order reads “In conclusion, therefore, the court finds that while the plaintiff has established that the defendant was liable to compensate it for the loss of its goods on account of breach of terms of the lease agreement, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the claims for special damages or loss as required by the law”.
