Quick Mart Loses Ksh14.9 Million Court Battle with Wells Fargo

A Collage photo of Quick Mart Supermarket and Wells Fargo Vehicle

Supermarket chain Quick Mart Limited has lost its case against security firm Wells Fargo Limited over a Ksh 14,918,750 shortfall linked to a cash-in-transit loss.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Fred Mugambi, the court heard that Quick Mart had sued Wells Fargo after Ksh 94,918,750 collected from its outlets on November four and five, 2023, went missing while being transported for deposit at Family Bank.

“The plaintiff avers that on or about the 4th and 5th days of November 2023, the defendant collected a total sum of Kshs.94,918,750/ from its various outlets, which monies were, in the ordinary course of business, to be deposited at Family Bank. The plaintiff asserts that the said monies were unfortunately never deposited as required, and upon enquiry the defendant confirmed that the monies had been lost while in transit,” read part of the ruling.

Quick Mart argued that the loss created an abrupt cash flow deficit, forcing it to take a Ksh 95 million loan from Family Bank to sustain operations.

The retailer further accused Wells Fargo of breaching their contract and sought to recover the full amount lost, alongside interest and legal costs.

However, Justice Mugambi ruled that Wells Fargo’s liability was contractually capped at Ksh 80 million for the single consignment involved.

He noted that the amount had already been paid to Quick Mart, effectively nullifying the retailer’s claim for the remaining Ksh 14,918,750.

“Accordingly, and for the reasons set out above, I find that the defendant’s liability was contractually capped at Kshs.80,000,000/= in respect of the loss arising from the single consignment in question. It is admitted that this sum has already been paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s further claim for Kshs. 14,918,750/= is therefore dismissed to the extent that it exceeds the contractual limit,” read part of the ruling.

The judge also dismissed Wells Fargo’s counterclaim, citing lack of sufficient evidence.

“Equally, the defendant’s claim for set-off in the sum of Kshs. 15,738/ is dismissed for want of proof.”

Justice Mugambi further clarified that the liability cap applied to the entire consignment and not to individual collections, rejecting Quick Mart’s argument that each collection should be treated separately to bypass the contractual limit.

During proceedings at the High Court’s Commercial and Tax Division, the court examined whether Wells Fargo was liable for the full amount claimed, as well as its counterclaim for Ksh 15,738 in alleged unpaid service fees.

In the end, both parties’ additional claims were dismissed, with the court making no order as to costs.