A supplier of aircraft spare parts has been ordered to pay an engine maintenance firm approximately Sh50 million for services rendered over one and a half years ago.
Justice Benjamin Musyoki directed BFO Aerospace International Ltd to pay Vector Aerospace Africa (PTY) Limited, trading as StandardAero, as the former had admitted the debt.
The supplier had claimed that there was no written agreement between the parties, and the two firms should, therefore, use the standard agreement, which stipulates that disputes should be settled under New York State laws.
“There could not be a better admission than that contained in a parties’ pleadings as it is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings,” Justice Musyoki said.
The judge said the supplier cannot be allowed to adduce evidence or import meanings into words that contradict what it has pleaded and that admission in the defence must take precedence over what could have been the meaning in an email sent by the company in May last year.
In the email, BFO Aerospace acknowledged owing StandardAero, stating that they were committed to settling the outstanding payments and were actively exploring all available options to do so. However, the email did not specify the amount due.
Court documents showed that BFO Aerospace contracted StandardAero to carry out a hot section inspection of its aircraft engine, sometime in September 2023. This is a detailed examination of the high-temperature sections of a jet engine, including the combustion chamber, turbines, and exhaust components.
The maintenance firm quoted $557,896 (Sh72.08 million) for the job, after which BFO Aerospace instructed them to proceed with the inspection and made a down payment of $40,000 (Sh5.16 million).
The court heard that StandardAero billed a sum of $532,121.18 (Sh68.75 million) through an invoice dated December 28, 2023 — less than the original quote.
StandardAero maintained that the amount due and owing from that contract was $392,121.18 (Sh50.66 million). Court documents did not indicate whether any additional payments had been made to account for the $100,000 difference.
BFO Aerospace opposed the case, arguing that the email in question lacked certainty and was ambiguous on the exact sums owed.
Further, the firm argued that the court was not the appropriate forum in which to litigate the matter.
Justice Musyoki, however, said there was nothing StandardAero would be required to prove if the matter went to full trial.
The judge said BFO Aerospace had admitted the debt and even ‘affirmed its commitment to settling the amount due for the services rendered and is actively exploring all available options to resolve the outstanding payment’.
He stated that the supplier had acknowledged that it was not contesting the amount, and had given its commitment to pay.
“A party is not bound to prove what has been admitted by the opposite party. There will therefore be no need to keep the plaintiff (StandardAero) herein waiting for the hearing when there are no issues to be tried,” said the judge.
