A suit in which Gender CS Aisha Jumwa is facing insolvency proceedings has been referred to mediation.
Jumwa has been sued by Bevaj Furniture Ltd who wants her declared bankrupt for failing to pay a Sh60,000,000 debt for the purchase of a house in Nairobi's upmarket Runda estate.
Jumwa identified the multistorey palatial home and signed a sale agreement for the property in March last year for Sh215 million.
Because she could only get a bank loan of Sh145 million, she asked the seller to split the amount into two. The seller agreed and made the variation.
The CS then committed to pay the balance of Sh70 million in three instalments.
She paid Sh10 million upon signing the addendum and promised to clear the balance of Sh60 million within a year. That hasn't happened prompting the suit.
Jumwa on March 22 filed an application to have the suit dismissed arguing the demand is improper, irregular and an abuse of court process.
She bases her argument on a clause of the sale agreement entered into with Bevaj that provides that if any dispute arises between the parties, the matter shall be referred to arbitration, and that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties.
She has faulted the company for failing to exhaust all alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before commencing the court proceedings.
On Thursday when the matter came up for mention in court, Justice Josephine Mongare of the Commercial and Tax Division of the High Court in Nairobi directed that it be referred to Court Annexed Mediation to give the parties an opportunity to settle their disputes.
The matter will be mentioned on April 29 before the Court Annexed Mediation and for further directions before the judge on July 8.
Jumwa in her application accuses Bevaj Furniture Limited of an attempt to embarrass her and present her as an individual that is wholly incapable of settling her debts, if any, despite there being no evidence of her inability to pay the debt.
She has also disputed the existence of the debt. She accuses Bevaj of breaching the contract saying the company did not provide any extra furnishings and decorations as requested.
“In any event, my client is a member of the Cabinet, who is salaried and capable of paying her bills if and when they become due. She is not, by any measure, insolvent or incapable of settling her debts. The Statutory Demand is only meant to embarrass and oppress her,” her lawyer Robert Gitau says in the affidavit.
Court documents show Jumwa and Bevaj entered into a sale agreement on March 13 last year.
Prior to the execution of the sale agreement, Roselyn Wambui, Director of Bevaj says Jumwa approached her to sell her house to her. It was on sale at a price of Sh250 million.
Jumwa negotiated the price and it was brought down to Sh215 million. Wambui subsequently instructed her advocates to draw a sale agreement and send it to Jumwa's advocates.
“She confirmed receipt of the sale agreement and at that point there was no issue with the price but she confirmed that she was being financed,” says Wambui.
“But it later turned out that Jumwa could only qualify for a loan of Sh145 million from her financiers (KCB-Bank Limited)” she adds.
The agreement was then adjusted to capture the extra amount of Sh70 million which Jumwa was not being financed for.
Wambui says Jumwa paid Sh10 million and left a balance of Sh60 million. She was to pay this amount in 12 months.
She claims the CS sent her a message on January 4 alleging that the house was overpriced and she should consider bringing it down to which she declined.
Wambui then wrote a demand to Jumwa's advocates in February this year asking them to honour the balance of Sh60 million.
On March 6, Wambui said they responded saying “they will not make any payment and they were ready to receive any court summons clearly acknowledging that the dispute was one headed to court”.
The property measures 0.2448 hectares.
Wambui in response to Jumwa's application says “it is an attempt to delay the overdue payment of the balance of the purchase price which was voluntarily agreed upon by the parties”.
She has maintained that the court has jurisdiction to handle the dispute as the sale agreement was executed by the parties without any undue influence.