Story navigation Start Story start 1 update
Resolved1 update Updated May 4

Heineken in Sh1.7bn compensation tussle with tycoon Ngugi Kiuna

Dutch brewers, Heineken,  has challenged a Sh1.79 billion compensation bill imposed on it for terminating a distribution deal with Maxam Ltd, a company owned by tycoon Ngugi Kiuna . Heineken East Africa Import Company Ltd and Heineken International B.V. have appealed the High Court’s ruling issued in July 2019 in favo

Sign in to follow Follow this story to get bell alerts when new updates publish.
Share
Latest updates
Alerts and app Choose how this story reaches you.

Follow this story

Sign in once to follow Heineken in Sh1.7bn compensation tussle with tycoon Ngugi Kiuna, pin Nyakundi, and come back to the same story as it develops.

Sign in
  1. 1

    Follow thread

    Create or open your account, then follow this thread from the story header.

  2. 2

    Pick alerts

    Choose every update, major updates, daily recap, documents only, or no notifications.

  3. 3

    Pin app

    Install Nyakundi so push alerts reopen this exact story.

  4. 4

    Share link

    Use the parent story link when you want the whole evolution to travel together.

Pin Nyakundi

Install the site as an app so followed-story alerts open straight back into the file.

Where we are so far

If you are joining us

Key points

Live updates

Latest developments

Newest first. Times are shown on every update; older context continues below.

1 update in this file Story overview
Photo
Update link
Nyakundi Report

Heineken in Sh1.7bn compensation tussle with tycoon Ngugi Kiuna

Heineken
Heineken

Media in this update

1 item
Heineken

Heineken

Photo

Dutch brewers, Heineken, has challenged a Sh1.79 billion compensation bill imposed on it for terminating a distribution deal with Maxam Ltd, a company owned by tycoon Ngugi Kiuna . Heineken East Africa Import Company Ltd and Heineken International B.V. have appealed the High Court’s ruling issued in July 2019 in favour of the tycoon. The brewer is challenging Justice James Makau’s ruling, arguing that the judge did not consider the terms of the distributorship agreement. It also faulted the judge for ruling that Maxam Ltd had a legitimate expectation that the agreement would not be terminated. “The learned judge erred by holding that the appellants constructively terminated the distribution agreement by appointing additional distributors...

Source: nyakundireportblog Linked source

Visual file

Latest media in this story

Photos and videos from the update stream, linked back to the exact moment they entered the file.