Sunday July 2, 2023
Nairobi (HOL) - The Somali government has been ordered to pay Kingsley Construction Limited 23 million Kenyan shillings ($206,748 USD) by a Nairobi court over a renovation contract dispute for the Somali Embassy in Kenya. The Consul of the Somali Embassy, Habib Mohamed Igaal, contested the court's verdict on Saturday, alleging that the judiciary had not fully addressed the accusations against the embassy.
The lawsuit, instigated by Kingsley Construction in 2019, claimed the Somali Embassy breached the contract by blocking workers from accessing the project site and leaving an outstanding payment of 23.4 million Kenyan shillings ($210,192 USD). The company argued they were unjustly dismissed from the renovation contract, sparking a legal dispute.
Igaal expressed his dismay with the court's decision, arguing the embassy was only privy to the judgment once it was reported in the media. He further contended there was no existing verbal or written contract with Kingsley Construction, suggesting that the case was built on false pretenses.
The controversy began in 2016 when the company initiated renovation work, estimated at 53.5 million Kenyan shillings ($480,513 USD), on the Somali-owned property in Nairobi. The embassy, however, denied these allegations and stressed there was no concrete agreement with Kingsley. By 2019, the conflict had escalated, with the construction company accusing the embassy of detaining and mistreating a process server sent to deliver court documents.
The Somali Embassy closed for renovations in 2020 and has since reopened and been inaugurated by Somalia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmed Isse Awad. Despite this, the lawsuit continued, leading to the recent court verdict, which mandates that the Somali government pay Kingsley Construction the contested sum.
In 2020, it was ruled that embassies
could not be sued on behalf of their governments according to Article 22 of the Vienna Convention, but the lawsuit could be filed against Somalia's federal government. Last month's ruling confirms that governments can be sued in ordinary commercial transactions, invalidating the defence of sovereign immunity in such instances.