News
Construction firm ordered to pay sh109m over unpaid building materials
In her judgment, Justice Harriet Grace Magala, on July 6, 2026, ordered Prism Construction to pay Jan Mohammed Enterprises, being the outstanding balance for the building materials supplied under the contract.
Jan Mohammed Enterprises stated in the suit that it delivered materials worth sh127 million but received only sh18 million, leaving an outstanding balance of sh109 million. (File photo)
By: Edward Anyoli, Journalist @New Vision
________________
The High Court has ordered Prism Construction Limited to pay sh109 million to Jan Mohammed Enterprises Limited for breaching a contract by failing to pay for building materials supplied for the construction of Moyo District Hospital.
In her judgment, Justice Harriet Grace Magala, on July 6, 2026, ordered Prism Construction to pay Jan Mohammed Enterprises, being the outstanding balance for the building materials supplied under the contract.
Court records show that the dispute stems from a contract under which the construction firm supplied building materials for a construction project at Moyo hospital between 2014 and 2015. Jan Mohammed Enterprises stated in the suit that it delivered materials worth sh127 million but received only sh18 million, leaving an outstanding balance of sh109 million.
Jan Mohammed Enterprises through its lawyer Richard Bundu of Bundu and Company Advocates sought recovery of the unpaid amount, together with general damages, interest, and the costs of the suit.
The court stated that costs should follow the outcome of the case and awarded the costs of the suit to Jan Mohammed Enterprises, alongside the payment of the outstanding sum.
Justice Magala further noted that Prism Construction had retained Jan Mohammed Enterprises’ money since 2016. Although the plaintiff had sought a higher interest rate, the judge found it excessive and instead awarded interest at 18% per annum on the decretal sum, effective from the date the suit was filed until the date of the judgment.
Jan Mohammed Enterprises through its lawyer Richard Bundu of Bundu and Company Advocates sought recovery of the unpaid amount, together with general damages, interest, and the costs of the suit.
The court stated that costs should follow the outcome of the case and awarded the costs of the suit to Jan Mohammed Enterprises, alongside the payment of the outstanding sum.
Justice Magala further noted that Prism Construction had retained Jan Mohammed Enterprises’ money since 2016. Although the plaintiff had sought a higher interest rate, the judge found it excessive and instead awarded interest at 18% per annum on the decretal sum, effective from the date the suit was filed until the date of the judgment.
“There exists no reason to deny the plaintiff costs of this suit. Having found it in favour of the plaintiff (Jan Mohammed Enterprises), I hereby award the plaintiff the costs of the suit,” Magala said.
The defendant Prism Construction through its lawyer Saddam Waymo Advocates denied the allegations, arguing that it only instructed to Jan Mohammed Enterprises to supply building materials worth up to sh20 million for the Moyo Hospital project. The defendant maintained that the amount was secured by a postdated cheque of sh20 million and that it never authorised the supply of materials beyond that value.
The construction firm has contended that there was no evidence before court showing that the parties had entered into a written contract or agreement capable of giving rise to a breach of contract claim.
However, the court rejected the construction firm's argument and found that there had been a breach of contract on its part.
The defendant Prism Construction through its lawyer Saddam Waymo Advocates denied the allegations, arguing that it only instructed to Jan Mohammed Enterprises to supply building materials worth up to sh20 million for the Moyo Hospital project. The defendant maintained that the amount was secured by a postdated cheque of sh20 million and that it never authorised the supply of materials beyond that value.
The construction firm has contended that there was no evidence before court showing that the parties had entered into a written contract or agreement capable of giving rise to a breach of contract claim.
However, the court rejected the construction firm's argument and found that there had been a breach of contract on its part.