DP Ruto's Amaco fails to stop auction over Sh19m debt

The Africa Merchant Assurance Company (Amaco) wanted the High Court to bar Mama Rael Memorial Foundation from demanding payment of the amount or auctioning the assets pending determination of an appeal.

Photo credit: Pool

An insurance company linked to Deputy President William Ruto has failed in its bid to block auctioning of its assets over an unpaid debt of Sh19 million owed to an NGO.

The Africa Merchant Assurance Company (Amaco) wanted the High Court to bar Mama Rael Memorial Foundation from demanding payment of the amount or auctioning the assets pending determination of an appeal.

Amaco had told Justice Dorah Chepkwony that it had filed an “arguable” appeal against a magistrate’s ruling dated May 23, 2019 which allowed the foundation to demand the money.

The insurance firm also wanted the High Court to allow it to change its advocates from Ong’anda & Associates Advocates to Kihima & Koech Advocates. In addition, it wanted its late appeal against the ruling deemed as properly filed.

However, Justice Chepkwony dismissed the request, saying Amaco failed to offer a substantive explanation for the delay in filing the request to halt execution of the magistrate’s ruling.

“The ruling in the lower court which Amaco wishes to appeal against was rendered on May 23, 2019 and the application (for stay) was filed on January 31, 2022. This was beyond the requirement of 30 days as provided for under the Civil Procedure Act,” said the judge.

Inordinate delay

In the absence of a good explanation, the court said it could not exercise its powers in favour of Amaco because there was inordinate delay in filing the application.

“Mama Rael Memorial Foundation, who is a successful party, should not be denied the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of its judgment,” said the judge.

She added that Amaco did not prove it has an arguable appeal or one that had high chances of success. The insurance firm had stated that it stood to suffer substantial loss if execution of the court orders proceeded.

On the issue of changing advocates, the judge said there was no evidence that the previous lawyer, Ong’anda & Associates Advocates, was informed about the matter.

She noted that the Civil Procedure rules require the court to allow the change upon a consent being filed between the outgoing and the proposed incoming advocates.

“It should be noted that any party has a right to choose advocates of their choice to represent them. But the same should not be used as a toll to prejudice the successful party from reaping the benefits of their judgment, as I believe in the case herein,” said the judge.

Compensate the foundation

The court dispute started in 2018 and stemmed from Amaco’s breach of an insurance contract by failing to compensate the foundation its dues.

Court papers indicate that the foundation had entered into a contractor’s Performance Bond agreement with Amaco in March 2016.

The main term and obligation of Amaco in the agreement was to guarantee a sum of Sh10.5 million as security for compliance with another agreement the foundation had with a construction company, Newspace Creators Ltd.

The construction firm undertook to complete the construction of the foundation’s premises within seven months, which it failed to deliver. This prompted the foundation to serve the contractor with a default notice.

It said Amaco was under legal and contractual obligation to honour the terms of the agreement by paying the guaranteed amount upon the contractor’s failure to finish the work.

The magistrate court ruled in favour of the foundation and awarded it the guaranteed amounts, plus interest at 12 per cent a year.

Welcome!

You're all set to enjoy unlimited Prime content.