When you unknowingly buy a faulty vehicle in Kenya, you are most likely to shoulder the burden of repairs as the seller smiles all the way to the bank to cash in his deceitful sale.
This type of bad business is usually shielded by the ‘As is where is’ sales model, which requires the buyer of a secondhand car to carry out due diligence before making the purchase. Under this model, it is assumed that the buyer was fully aware of what they were getting themselves into when they made the purchase.
However, this model has been turned upside down by the High Court in a landmark ruling that is set to streamline the second hand car selling industry. According to the High Court, sellers of second hand vehicles cannot be shielded from taking responsibility if they deceit a buyer into buying a vehicle they know is faulty.
This determination by the High Court was issued in the case involving car dealer Best Cars Limited trading as Impact Motors and car buyers Morara Omoke and Esabel Gathigia.
“The trial court [Small Claims Court] was correct in its judgment when it observed that there was tangible evidence adduced by Mr. Omoke and Ms. Gathigia that the suit motor vehicle was not in perfect working condition and it mattered not that the latter was inspected to their satisfaction given that they were not experts in the field,” High Court judge Justice Linus Kassan ruled.
Justice Kassan dismissed the appeal that had been filed by Impact Motors against the decision of the Small Claims Court to award Omoke and Gathigia Sh400,000 in special damages for the repairs they had done on a vehicle they acquired from the seller under As is where is model.
Super Metro CEO Nelson Mwangi: How search for my father led to matatu empire
The High Court heard that the duo had bought a second-hand Volkswagen Golf in January 2020 at Sh630,000. Soon after acquiring the vehicle, it developed mechanical problems that included jerking and inhabited acceleration and they used Sh400,000 to carry out repairs.
This was despite assurances that the seller had given to the buyers that the vehicle was in perfect working condition. The duo said that they informed the seller about the problems and requested for the vehicle’s mechanical history but they were ignored.
They told the court that the seller had intentionally and malevolently sold the suit motor vehicle misrepresenting it to be in perfect working condition and merchantable quality. On their part, the seller had argued that the buyers had been allowed to inspect the vehicle on their own and to also bring their preferred mechanics for an inspection. The High Court, however, dismissed this justification.
