1. You have predicted to terminate our contract in complete disregard of the terms of the contract. It was decided that the instruction to prepare a contract thereafter, the parties will be bound. The defendant made an affidavit and another affidavit, both sworn by Lombo Simba Lombo Lombo. The notification was filed on 5.06.2003, but only signed by the applicant. The evidence presented shows that the parties entered into a contract. The offer was made by letter of 23.5.2000 and the amended offers of 31.5.2000. The defendant accepted the offer in its letter of 25.6.2000, written under the following conditions:- The agreement was to enter into a formal contract in the form of 1999 contracts and contractual terms by the Order of Architects of Kenya and the Joint Building Council. This document is issued under the name “PEX 5.” This form of contract contains a compromise clause.
At this point, the main question arises as to whether the parties have entered into a contract. The defendant relies on the Halsbury Laws of England, Volume 9 at page 203, where it appears that two or more parties must agree that there must be an ad idem consensus, a meeting of minds and that they must intend to create legal relationships that can be enforceable and supported by a consideration. As mentioned above, there was no further correspondence, the complainant was allowed to begin construction immediately and obtained possession of the land. Subsequently, disputes broke out and the contract was eventually terminated. It was proposed that the case be referred to an arbitration tribunal rather than lay courts. Subsequently, the applicant indicated that the termination of the contract was not in accordance with the 1999 agreement and, in particular, article 38 of the agreement. “As long as we can agree on a satisfactory selling price between us, the terms and conditions are subject to the normal standard form of the RIBA contract.” The contractual form is the 1999 agreement on construction work, published by the Kenya Architectural Association and the Joint Building Council … The accused called two witnesses to support his case. DW1 was Joseph Wamai Muigai, the defendant`s accounting employee as Finance and Administration. He stated that there were letters of 23/5/00 and 31/5/2000 of the complainants, the first was an offer and the second was a change. The official was accepted by the defendant on 6.05.00, ownership of the site was immediately granted. No copy of the contract developed by the Order of Architects has ever been signed.
The document was empty. In his mutual relations, he testified that the parties had not complied with the formal 1999 agreement. It is a document, as the applicant shows (Exhibit 5). The document contains several terms and conditions that apply in construction contracts.