Ask a lawyer:
Breach Remedies: If the contract is upheld, the breaching party may face damages, specific performance, or contract rescission

Sources: The following sources will be used to answer your question regarding breach of contract remedies in Kenya:

• The Contracts Act, Cap 23, Laws of Kenya: This Act governs the formation, interpretation, and enforcement of contracts in Kenya. Specific sections relevant to remedies will be cited throughout the answer.

• The Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, Laws of Kenya: This Act outlines the procedures for enforcing court judgments, including those related to contract breaches.

• The Constitution of Kenya, 2010: While not directly addressing contract law, the Constitution establishes the framework within which all laws, including contract law, operate. Specifically, Article 165 on the Judiciary's role in dispute resolution is relevant.

• Case Law: Relevant Kenyan case law will be cited to illustrate the application of legal principles. Specific cases will be mentioned where applicable.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Damages as a Remedy for Breach of Contract 2.1 Types of Damages 2.2 Mitigation of Loss 2.3 Assessment of Damages

3. Specific Performance as a Remedy 3.1 Availability of Specific Performance 3.2 Factors Affecting the Grant of Specific Performance

4. Rescission of Contract as a Remedy 4.1 Grounds for Rescission 4.2 Effect of Rescission

5. Conclusion

6. Introduction

A breach of contract occurs when a party to a contract fails to perform its obligations as agreed upon. Kenyan law provides various remedies for the aggrieved party, including damages, specific performance, and rescission. The choice of remedy depends on the nature of the breach, the type of contract, and the circumstances of the case. This response will delve into each of these remedies in detail, drawing upon the relevant Kenyan legislation and case law.

1. Damages as a Remedy for Breach of Contract

Damages are the most common remedy for breach of contract. They aim to compensate the aggrieved party for the loss suffered as a result of the breach. The Contracts Act, Cap 23, does not explicitly define damages, but it implies the availability of this remedy through its provisions on contractual obligations and their enforcement. The courts' role in assessing damages is crucial, guided by principles of fairness and justice.

2.1 Types of Damages:

• Compensatory Damages: These are intended to put the aggrieved party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. This is the most common type of damages awarded. The assessment considers the actual loss suffered, including direct and consequential losses. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied).

• Nominal Damages: These are awarded where a breach has occurred, but the aggrieved party has suffered no actual loss. The amount awarded is usually small, primarily acknowledging the breach. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied).

• Exemplary or Punitive Damages: These are awarded in exceptional circumstances where the breach is particularly egregious, such as fraud or malice. Their purpose is not to compensate the aggrieved party but to punish the breaching party and deter similar conduct. The award of exemplary damages is less common in contract law than in tort law. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied, but sparingly applied).

• Liquidated Damages: These are damages specified in the contract itself as the amount payable in case of a breach. The courts will generally uphold liquidated damages clauses unless they are deemed to be a penalty. A penalty clause is one that is designed to punish the breaching party rather than to compensate the aggrieved party for actual loss. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied, subject to judicial scrutiny).

2.2 Mitigation of Loss:

The aggrieved party has a duty to mitigate their loss. This means they must take reasonable steps to minimize the extent of their loss resulting from the breach. Failure to mitigate can reduce the amount of damages recoverable. The burden of proof lies on the breaching party to demonstrate that the aggrieved party failed to mitigate their loss. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied).

2.3 Assessment of Damages:

The assessment of damages is a matter for the court. The court will consider various factors, including the nature of the breach, the foreseeability of the loss, and the evidence presented by both parties. The aim is to arrive at a fair and just compensation for the aggrieved party. Expert evidence may be necessary to determine the extent of the loss, particularly in complex commercial contracts. (Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21, governs the court process).

1. Specific Performance as a Remedy

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels the breaching party to perform their contractual obligations. It is an order of the court directing the breaching party to do what they promised to do under the contract. This remedy is not available as of right; the court has discretion to grant or refuse it.

3.1 Availability of Specific Performance:

Specific performance is generally granted only when damages are an inadequate remedy. This is often the case with contracts involving unique goods or land, where monetary compensation cannot adequately replace the subject matter of the contract. The court will consider whether the contract is capable of specific performance, meaning whether it is possible to enforce the contract's terms. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied, subject to equitable considerations).

3.2 Factors Affecting the Grant of Specific Performance:

Several factors can influence the court's decision to grant specific performance:

• The nature of the contract: Contracts for personal services are generally not subject to specific performance, as it would amount to forced labor.

• The conduct of the parties: If the aggrieved party has acted inequitably, the court may refuse to grant specific performance.

• The availability of alternative remedies: If damages are an adequate remedy, the court is less likely to grant specific performance.

• Hardship: If specific performance would cause undue hardship to the breaching party, the court may refuse to grant it. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied, subject to equitable considerations).

1. Rescission of Contract as a Remedy

Rescission is an equitable remedy that sets aside the contract, returning the parties to their pre-contractual positions. It is available where there has been a fundamental breach of contract or where the contract was induced by misrepresentation, mistake, or duress.

4.1 Grounds for Rescission:

• Fundamental Breach: A breach that goes to the root of the contract, rendering the contract substantially different from what was agreed upon.

• Misrepresentation: A false statement of fact that induces the other party to enter into the contract.

• Mistake: A fundamental error in the contract that renders it voidable.

• Duress: Coercion or undue influence that compels a party to enter into a contract. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied, subject to equitable considerations).

4.2 Effect of Rescission:

Rescission aims to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions. This involves returning any property or money transferred under the contract. The court may order restitution to compensate for any losses suffered as a result of the contract. Rescission is not always possible if the parties cannot be restored to their original positions, or if third parties have acquired rights under the contract. (Contracts Act, Cap 23, implied, subject to equitable considerations).

1. Conclusion

Kenyan law provides a range of remedies for breach of contract, each tailored to the specific circumstances of the case. Damages are the most common remedy, aiming to compensate the aggrieved party for their loss. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels performance, while rescission sets aside the contract altogether. The choice of remedy depends on the nature of the breach, the type of contract, and the court's discretion, guided by principles of fairness and justice as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The aggrieved party must act diligently to mitigate their losses and present sufficient evidence to support their claim for the chosen remedy.