The High Court in Nyeri has upheld a decision by a factory affiliated with the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) to reject a pay demand by a farmer who delivered tea leaves whose volume exceeded the expected yield of the bushes registered under his name.
Justice Kizito Magare found that the farmer, Harun Kagwi, had no reason to claim extra payment of Sh1.7 million from Chinga Tea Factory Company Limited since there was no evidence on the source of the extra bushes where the unexplained green tea had been picked.
The farmer said the money was for his earnings from green tea delivered within seven months, between September 2018 and March 2019, which the factory had refused to pay leading to a court dispute.
His claim was dismissed in January 2021 by Othaya Principal Magistrate Monica Munyendo, who ruled in favour of the factory that is under the management of the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA).
The factory said it had discovered that the farmer had supplied an excess weight of green tea that could not be supported by the number of registered tea bushes as per the Tea Buying Centre By-laws.
For his part, Mr Kagwi said the disputed excess tea leaves came from the tea bushes he inherited from his father and that he was not aware of the by-laws. He said he was a licensed tea grower with three registration numbers for his farms and was attached to three tea buying centres -Kahiagira, Nyakone, and Ngaru Tea Buying Centres.
While dismissing his appeal, Justice Magare said according to the factory records the only tea bushes the farmer had were 1,287 with a maximum yield of 1,634.5 kilogrammes.
"There was no registration of the other bushes or evidence of their existence. I find and hold that the factory was thus correct in finding that the excess tea was unexplained. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that there is no falsification of weights. Further, it prevents the theft of tea from other farmers. The Appellant failed in his bid to introduce what he called new evidence. It is thus evident that his claim was untenable," said the judge.
The court held that the farmer was bound both by the Crops Act and the contract he signed with the factory, to register specific tea bushes.
Regarding the question of the supply of excess and unaccounted-for tea, the judge said the evidence on record showed that the licensing of the crop covers not only the supply but also the number of tea bushes.
He explained that a farmer producing more than what is scientifically possible leads to a conclusion of breach of the agreement between the parties.
"This is either through a result of inflation or unauthorised tea. The Appellant did not dispute the finding that only one of his registration numbers had 1,287 bushes as against the registration of 2,337 bushes. The other two numbers had no single tea bush, but they produced tea leaves," said the judge.
He observed that the farmer had agreed with the factory where he was to supply tea from his farm. He ended up supplying tea over the capacity he had and was unable to explain the origin of the excess tea.
"There was no agreement to supply tea that the Appellant did not grow. The court cannot make a party avoid a lawful contract they have entered into," he stated.
Justice Magare further noted that in his case against the factory, the farmer resorted to pleading quantities and amounts that he could not justify by evidence.
The factory's case was that the amount of tea supplied was over and above the number of tea bushes as per the audit. It said there is no way the farmer's tea bushes could have yielded the quantities that he purported to supply.
It was also the case of the factory that it paid only what the Appellant could justify as per the audit and the bylaws. Further, the Appellant could not be paid because he was in debt and any proceeds were applied towards settling the debt.
