Company ordered to pay Ksh.67.6 million for breaching Equipment Release Agreement

In a judgment delivered on July 3, 2026, Justice Freda Mugambi found that Horizon Media Solutions breached an Equipment Release Agreement by releasing only two of the six agreed lots of equipment and failing to return the remaining four.

The dispute arose from a purchase order issued in September 2017 for Huawei Micro-Grid Power Solution equipment valued at USD 777,455.34. After the equipment was delivered, it was rejected, prompting the parties to sign an Equipment Release Agreement on November 1, 2018.

Under the agreement, Horizon Media Solutions was to release the equipment to Networks Kenya in three phases comprising six lots.

In return, Networks Kenya was to pay a USD 60,000 indemnity in three instalments as each phase was released.

Networks Kenya told the court that only two lots were returned and that it paid the corresponding USD 20,000 indemnity. Despite repeated demands, the company said Horizon Media Solutions failed to release the remaining equipment, forcing it to file the suit.

Horizon Media Solutions, through denied liability, argued that it was merely a technical adviser and subcontractor to Sonara Ventures Limited, which it claimed was the actual purchaser of the equipment for a Rural Electrification Authority project.

It also filed a counterclaim seeking compensation for storage charges, taxes, transport and other costs allegedly incurred after disputes involving the equipment.

However, although the company filed a defence and counterclaim, it failed to attend the hearing or call any witnesses to support its case. The matter therefore proceeded in its absence.

After considering the evidence, the court found that the Equipment Release Agreement was valid and enforceable and that Networks Kenya had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that Horizon Media Solutions had breached its obligations by failing to release the remaining equipment.

The judge held that the plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged and was supported by correspondence showing partial performance of the agreement, including the release of the first two lots.

While Networks Kenya had also sought general damages and liquidated damages for the delay in returning the equipment, the court declined to award the claims, finding that they had not been specifically proved.

Instead, the court ruled that compensating the company with the value of the unreturned equipment would adequately restore it to the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred.

The High Court entered judgment in favour of Networks Kenya for USD 523,923.56, with interest at court rates from the date the suit was filed until payment in full. It also awarded the company the costs of the suit.

The court dismissed Horizon Media Solutions' counterclaim, holding that it had not been supported by any evidence.

Lawyer Phillip Nyachoti was representing the plaintiff.