 |
| Dutch beer giant Heineken moves its legal battle to supreme court |
Dutch beer giant Heineken has escalated its legal battle to Kenya’s Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a ruling that awarded over KSh 1.799 billion to Maxam Limited. Heineken has moved to the Supreme Court of Kenya seeking stay orders on a decision that awarded KSh 1.799 billion to Maxam Limited. Maxam Limited, owned by Ngugi Kiuna, was awarded the payout after the Appellate Court upheld a ruling that Heineken wrongfully terminated its distributorship agreement. During the appeal proceedings at the Appellate Court, Heineken secured a bank guarantee from Equity Bank; in the filing at the Supreme Court, Heineken expressed fears that Maxam Limited may call for the release of the money at any time, hence the move to get a stay order. Heineken’s legal team, led by senior counsel Fred Ngatia, argued that if the payment were made before the appeal is determined, retrieving the funds would be challenging, as Maxam Ltd allegedly lacks significant assets. “The guarantee can now be called up by the 2nd Respondent at any time. Once the payment is effected, the sum will not be within reach of this Honourable Court. In addition, restitution of the sum will be impossible as the 2nd Respondent has no known assets capable of seizure and no certainty exists that such assets will be available by the time that this Court determines the Appeal” said Heineken’s legal team. Supreme Court Deputy Registrar Nelly Kariuki recognised the urgency of Heineken’s appeal but refused to issue the stay order requested by Ngatia. She instructed Ngatia to serve the necessary documents to Kiuna’s firm by the end of the day and scheduled a mention of the case for July 5 to provide further directions. Heineken losses in Appelate Court Earlier, TUKO.co.ke reported that the Court of Appeal upheld a previous decision awarding KSh 1.799 billion in special damages to Maxam Limited. Justices Pauline Nyamweya, Abida Ali-Aroni, and John Mativo affirmed a January 2016 High Court ruling that declared Heineken’s termination notice unlawful and unprocedural. Maxam, represented by advocate Philip Nyachoti, argued that the termination notice was invalid due to improper issuance and lack of provided reasons. Heineken is now asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the distributorship agreement, particularly regarding unilateral termination.
by Elijah Ntongai
