. INTRODUCTION
There are various definitions of who a consumer is.
One such definition is provided in the section 2(1) of the Kenya Consumer
Protection Act.[1]
According to the Act “consumer” means:
(a)
a person to whom particular goods or services are marketed in the ordinary
course of the supplier’s business;
(b)
a person who has entered into a transaction with a supplier in the ordinary
course of the supplier’s business, unless the transaction is exempt from the
application of this Act;
(c)
a user of particular goods or a recipient or beneficiary of particular
services, irrespective of whether that user, recipient or beneficiary was a
party to a transaction concerning the supply of those particular goods and
services; and
(d)
a franchisee in terms of a franchise agreement, to the extent applicable in
terms of this Act;
Consumer is also defined as person who buys goods or
services for personal, family, or household use, with no intention of resale.[2]
David Oughton and John Lowry in consumer law[3] expounded the term consumer
to include any user of goods or services supplied by another, with the result
that a construction company purchasing building materials for use in the
construction of a housing estate would be acting as a consumer.
Consumer protection can be defined to mean a group
of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers and
enhancing fair trade competition and giving all the information regarding the
goods and services.[4]
Consumer protection is also defined as all measures
that serve to protect the consumer’s interest in goods and services.[5]
Article 46(2) of the constitution provides that parliament
shall enact legislation to provide for consumer protection and for fair, honest
and decent advertising. This being the supreme law of the land it gives
the much needed authority or power and grounds on which consumer protection is
founded.
It is defined as an economic and social dogma that
promotes social and economic acquirement of goods and services above and beyond
your basic needs and in greater amounts. Consumerism is the promotion of the
consumer’s interests or alternatively the theory that an increasing consumption
of goods is economically desirable.[6]
There are various consumer protection regimes that
exist globally, including, but not limited to, strict liability under statute,
common law product liability and protection under contract law. Protection
under contract laws is governed by breach of contract. If goods supplied do not
match production description, then the consumer is entitled to sue for breach
of contract.
Under common law consumer protection is covered
under the tort of product liability which is a facet of the law of negligence.
A manufacturer is liable in tort of then he is negligent in supplied defective
products that cause harm to an individual.[7]
But find liability here is difficult given that the consumer has to proof duty
of care, breach of the duty, causation and injury to the consumer.
With modern trends witnessed in consumerism,
countries are coming up with specific laws to regulations to govern in consumer
protection. Some of the laws include the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 of the
UK, the Consumer Protection Act of Canada, and the Consumer protection Act of
Kenya.[8]
A general trend of this consumer protection regime is that it provides for
strict liability tort for product liability. For example, in the case of Abouzaid v Mother Care (UK) ltd[9], while assembling a pram, an
elastic strap snapped out of the claimants hand and he was struck in the eye by
the buckle. The Court of Appeal held that the injury was caused by a defect in
the product because they could have done more to avoid such injuries. This is a
perfect illustration of strict liability under UK consumer protection regime.
However, this principle is not absolute such that in
a situation where the risk of a product is known courts have held that there
can be no defect in the product if the risk occurs. This is demonstrated in Richardson LRC Products Ltd 2000[10]where a condom was held not
to be defective even though the woman became pregnant because there is always a
risk of this happening.
Globally there has been increase in the number of
consumer protection litigations in the recent past. They include Toyota Faulty
Airbags Litigation, which has been one of the largest consumer protection
class-action settlements ever against the Japanese auto parts supplier Takata
Corp. and Honda Motor Co. regarding installation of faulty air bag inflators in
millions of vehicles in the United States. The complaint that was filed in
federal court in Los Angeles by Hagens Berman SobolShapiro, sought class-action
status and claimed Takata cut corners to build cheaper air bags and that Honda
purchased the parts to slice its manufacturing expenses. The law suit sought to
collect economic damages for vehicle owners, including reimbursement for the
decline in value of millions of cars allegedly caused by the air bag scandal.
There was a successful out of court settlement similar claims, including a
$1.6-billion class-action settlement with Toyota.[11]
Another illustration is Re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, where, following General Motors announcement of its
findings of the faulty ignition switch in 2014, thousands of claims were made
in civil courts across the country against the car maker. This is one of the
largest ongoing consumer protection cases whose completion will see developments
in consumer protection.[12]
Determination of the illustrations above will be
guided by the recent land mark decisions that have shaped the arena of consumer
protection in the world. Three of these landmark cases from progressive
jurisdictions are analyzed below. Analysis of the following recent consumer
protection cases will reveal this trend of coming up with consumer protection
laws in endeavor to protect interests of consumers. Given that in Kenya there
has been no landmark judicial pronouncement on consumer rights, the judgments
from foreign jurisdictions will guide the shift of consumer concerns in the
country.
In his mail, Richard received an “Official Sweepstakes
Notification” from the defendant written in such a manner that could lead the
recipient to infer that it was from Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc.,
and suggesting that the reader had won a
cash prize of US$833,337,. The mailing also contained a reply coupon and a
return envelope on which the official rules of the sweepstakes appeared in small print. The reply coupon also
offered Richard the possibility of subscribing to Time magazine. Richard
convinced that he was about to win replied to the notification in accordance
with the instructions. In so doing, he also subscribed to Time
magazine. Richard began regularly receiving issues of the magazine a
short time later, but the cheque he was expecting was a long time coming.
He contacted Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc., which informed him
that he would not be receiving a cheque, because the Document had not contained
the winning entry for the draw and was merely an invitation to participate in a
sweepstakes.
Richard filed a motion to institute proceedings in
which he asked the Quebec Superior Court to declare him to be the winner of the
cash prize mentioned in the Document and to order Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing
Inc. to pay compensatory and punitive damages corresponding to the value of the
grand prize. The Superior Court entertained the action in part.
Quebec Superior Court held that the Document
contravened Title II of the Consumer Protection Act (“C.P.A.”)
on prohibited business practices and that the civil sanctions provided for in section 272
of the C.P.A. were accordingly available. The judge set the value
of the moral injuries suffered by Richard
at $1,000 and fixed the quantum of punitive damages that were also awarded
to him at $100,000.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Time and Time
Consumer Marketing Inc. and concluded that they had not violated the C.P.A.
First, Time Inc. and Time Consumers Marketing Inc. had not violated section 228
of the C.P.A. by failing to indicate clearly in the Document that Richard
might not be the grand prize winner and that using the name of a fictitious
person as the signer of the Document did not contravene section 238(c)
of the C.P.A., since it did not have the potential to mislead consumers
about the merchant’s identity. It also held that there were no false or
misleading representations in the Document, as it would not mislead a consumer
“with an average level of intelligence,
scepticism and curiosity”. The Court of Appeal set aside the award of
compensatory and punitive damages.
Richard appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The
Supreme Court in allowing the appeal in part, held, among other things that:
i.
The test is not what a
consumer of average intelligence, skepticism and curiosity would understand
from the commercial representation but rather what a credulous and inexperienced consumer would comprehend.
ii.
Where a prohibited
business practice has been established, there
is no need to prove actual damages since an irrefutable presumption of
prejudice exists.
iii.
Punitive damages can be
awarded under the Consumer Protection Act even where the circumstances do not
justify compensatory damages.
In
reaching at it decision, the Supreme court had to establish an approach of
finding liability on part of the defendant for contravention of Title II of the
Consumer Protection Act(C.P.A.) The Court reasoned that the analytical approach, that is to say, what a consumer of average intelligence, sceptics
and curiosity would understand, chosen by the Court of Appeal for
establishing the general impression conveyed by the advertisement of Time Inc.
and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. was inconsistent with the test adopted by the
legislature. The Justices held that according section 218 of C.P.A., which guides the application of
all the provisions of Title II concerning prohibited business practices,
to determine whether a representation constitutes such a practice, it is
necessary to consider the “general
impression” given by the representation and, where appropriate, the “literal meaning” of the words used in
it, more so, when the question in issue was misleading advertising.
The court went ahead to state that:
To
be consistent with the legislature’s objective of protecting vulnerable persons
from the dangers of certain advertising techniques, the general impression test
must be applied from the perspective of the average consumer, who is credulous
and inexperienced and takes no more than ordinary care to observe that which is
staring him or her in the face upon first entering into contact with an entire
advertisement.[13]
A misleading advertisement is to be analysed without
considering the personal attributes of the person who initiated the proceedings
against the defendant. It set a two-step analysis which involves:
“(1) describing
the general impression that the representation is likely to convey to a
credulous and inexperienced consumer; and (2) determining whether that
general impression is true to reality.
If the answer at the second step is no, the merchant has engaged in a
prohibited practice.”
Regarding remedies for breach of consumer rights, the
injured party, under section 272 of the Consumer Protection Act of Canada can
claim a contractual remedy, compensatory damages and punitive damages, or just
one of those remedies. For the consumer
to enjoy remedies under the section, the consumer does not need to establish
fraud as the prohibited practice alone if proved constitute fraud on the
consumer.
In
this case, Richard discharged his burden of proving a sufficient nexus between
the prohibited practices engaged in by the respondents his subscription
contract with them. Richard subscribed
to Time magazine after reading the
documentation they had sent him, and the trial judge found that he would not
have subscribed to the magazine had he not read the misleading
documentation. As a result, the Document
is deemed to have had a fraudulent effect on Richard’s decision to subscribe to
Time magazine.
The
case established that the proper test for attaching liability on part of the
defendant for breach of consumer right. In addition, the case also established
that the supplier of commodities will be liable for committing an act which amount
to fraud on the consumer in the course of a consumer transaction.
The 20th century saw a rise in
consumerism coupled with increase in the variety of products available to
consumers. The increase in supply of goods and services led to increase in
competition putting some suppliers out of business. It also led to rise in
consumer misfortunes regarding the quality of goods and services and their
prices. To outdo each other in business the suppliers resorted to aggressive
and misleading advertisement to the detriment of consumers. The available
consumer protections regimes proofed inadequate hence the need to come up with
a robust legal framework to safeguard the interests of consumers. This led to
enactment of specific consumer protection legislations. But the laws need
interpretations so that they can be appropriately applied in the business
environment. Thus, the decision in Richard v Time Inc. is very essential in the
shaping the Kenyan consumer transaction environment in light of the modern
trends of consumerism.
With the enactment of the Constitution of Kenya
2010, consumer protection was made a fundamental aspect of the Bill of Rights.[14] Article 46 guarantees
consumer rights stating thus:
(1)
Consumers have the right—
(a) to goods and services of
reasonable quality;
(b) to the information necessary for
them to gain full benefit from goods and services;
(c) to the protection of their health,
safety, and economic interests; and
(d) to compensation for loss or injury
arising from defects in goods or services.
(2)
Parliament shall enact legislation to provide for consumer protection and for
fair, honest and decent advertising.
(3)
This Article applies to goods and services offered by public entities or
private persons.
Article 22 of the Constitution entitles every person
to in statute court proceeding claiming that a fundamental right in the Bill of
rights has been violated or infringed or threatened.
In 2012, Kenya enacted the Consumer Protection Act
which has a principal objective promoting and advancing socio-economic welfare
of the Kenyan consumers. Its key features include providing for prohibited
trade practices, improved standards of consumer information and promotion of
responsible consumer behavior besides providing for a comprehensive regulatory
and enforcement framework regarding consumer transactions in the country.
Through
section 3(2) of the Consumer Protection Act the case of Richard v Time Inc. may
guide the Kenyan courts in interpreting consumer protection laws. The section
states that:
(2) When interpreting or
applying this Act, a person, court or the Advisory Committee may consider—
(a) Appropriate foreign
and international law; and
(b) appropriate
international conventions, declarations or protocols relating to consumer
protection.
TELUS
and Siedel entered into a written cellular phone services contract in
2000. The standard form contract included a clause referring disputes to
private and confidential mediation and arbitration. It further waived any
right to commence or participate in a class action. By statement of claim
filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Siedel asserted a variety of
claims, including statutory causes of action under the Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), alleging that
TELUS falsely represented to her and other consumers how it calculates air time
for billing purposes. She sought remedial relief under sections 171
and 172 of the BPCPA in respect of what she contends are
deceptive and unconscionable practices, as well as certification to act on her
own behalf and as representative of a class of allegedly overcharged customers.
Siedel made an application to have her claim certified as a class action, TELUS
applied for a stay of all proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause,
pursuant to section 15 of the Commercial
Arbitration Act.
The British Trial Court denied TELUS’s application for stay finding it
was premature to determine whether the action should be stayed until the
certification application had been decided. TELUS aggrieved by the
decision of the trial court appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of
Appeal held that Siedel was bound by the arbitration clause contained in the
contract in respect of all claims. It allowed the appeal and entered a
stay of Siedel’s action in its entirety, holding that it is for the arbitrator
to determine which claims are subject to arbitration and which should go before
a court. Siedel aggrieved by the Court of
Appeal’s decision appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The
Supreme Court in a majority of 5-4 held that the right to pursue certain public
interest remedies provided for under the BPCPA could not be waived by contract,
while the right to recover damages under the statute was essentially a private
right of action which could be waived and that since the class action waiver
provision could not be severed from the arbitration clause as a whole it was
too void.
The
Supreme Court through the averment of Justice Binnie stating for the majority
held that the purpose of the BPCPA is consumer protection. As
such, its terms should be interpreted generously
in favor of consumers. Section 172 of the BPCPA contains
a statutory remedy whereby a person other than a supplier may bring an action
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to enforce the statute’s consumer
protection standards whether or not the person bringing the action has a
special interest or is affected by the consumer transaction that gives rise to
the action. Such a plaintiff is properly characterized as a public
interest plaintiff.
This
reasoning stemmed from BPCPA[15]
which provides that any agreement between parties that would waive or release
“rights, benefits or protections” conferred by the BPCPA is
void, together with section 172 which the court largely relied. Section 172[16]
provides that a director or a person other than a supplier whether or not the
person bringing the action has a special interest or any interest under this
Act or is affected by a consumer transaction that gives rise to the action ,
may bring an action in Supreme Court for one or both of the following;
i.
A declaration that an act
or practice engaged in by a supplier in respect of a consumer transaction
contravenes the Act or the regulations.
ii.
An interim or permanent
injunction restraining a supplier from contravening this Act or regulations.
The
Court went on further to affirm that the choice to restrict or not restrict
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter for the legislature.
Absent legislative intervention, the courts will generally give effect to the
terms of a commercial contract freely entered into, including an arbitration
clause. Section 172 is clearly designed to encourage private
enforcement in the public interest and the legislature understood that the
policy objectives of this section would not be well served by a series of
isolated low profile, private and confidential
arbitrations.
The
court also stated that if there is any ambiguity in the TELUS clause, it must
be resolved in favor of Siedel’s right of access to the court by the principles
of contra proferentum.
In
dissent justices Le Bel and Deschamps characterized the legal issue as the
determination of the proper role and status of arbitration and stated that the
majority decision was hostile to that role and status of arbitration. They held
that the BPCPA does not foreclose by means of sufficiently explicit language,
the use of arbitration as a means to resolve disputes. In their view, because
arbitrators can provide the same remedies as the BPCPA contemplates and because
arbitral awards would have an impact beyond the immediate parties, arbitration
would preserve access to justice.
As
discussed above, article 46 of the Constitution provides for consumer rights.
In light of the foregoing outline of article 46, the application of this case,
where Siedel was complaining of the overbilling and the nature of services
provided by the telecommunication company, seems to violate the consumers’
right of gaining full benefit from the services offered plus her economic
rights as aptly reflected under the Constitution. This decision cuts across
supply of goods and services, whether electronically or digitally, and renders
it an invaluable case in Kenya’s jurisprudence.
Accordingly,
this case has opened a wider scope of consumer protection and narrowed down any
possibilities of violation of consumers right by manufactures, service
providers or suppliers. The consumer in this digital era is more exposed to the
hazards that would result in case if a defect arises. Moreover, by limiting the
arbitral proceedings granted the claimants an unfettered right to invoke
court’s jurisdiction as courts are better placed at interpreting consumer
protection laws and their proceedings are public thus can scrutinized.
The
Kenya Consumer Protection Act is the main legislation that protects consumers
in Kenya. It provides for several rights of a consumer as stipulated under Part
II of the Act. Section 4 of the act provides that;
1) A consumer may
commence a proceeding on behalf of a class of persons or may become a member of
such class of persons in a proceeding in respect of a dispute arising out of a
consumer agreement despite any term or acknowledgment in the consumer agreement
or other agreement that purports to prevent or has the effect of preventing the
consumer from commencing or becoming a member of a class proceeding.
(2) When a dispute that
may result in a class proceeding arises, the consumer, the supplier and any
other person involved in it may agree to resolve the dispute using any
procedure that is available in law.
(3) A settlement or
decision that results from the procedure agreed to under subsection (2) shall
be binding on the parties.
This
provision is to the effect that clause in a consumer agreement limiting class
action to arbitration cannot bind a Kenyan consumer, but an agreement that is
made after a dispute has arisen to refer a matter to arbitration. Thus, the
case of Siedel can guide interpretation of this section given that it is a
replica of section 172 of the BPCPA.
Section
88 of Kenya Consumer Protection Act provides a limitation on arbitration. It
provides that
“Any term or acknowledgment in a consumer
agreement or a related agreement that requires or has the effect of requiring
that disputes arising out of the consumer agreement be submitted to arbitration
is invalid insofar as it prevents a consumer from exercising a right to
commence an action in the High Court given under this Act.”
This
section is equivalent to section 3 of the BPCPA which provides that:
“any
agreement between parties that would waive or release “rights, benefits or
protections” conferred by the BPCPA is
void.”
The
decision can also guide Kenyan courts regarding limitation of arbitration in
consumer disputes. Similarly, companies involved in consumer transactions can
be guided accordingly when it comes to how they draft their consumer contracts.
This will mitigate against unequal bargaining power between suppliers of
commodities and consumers in Kenya.
The
claimant and her husband used condoms as a means of contraception as they no
longer wished to have any children. Mr. Richardson used the condom manufactured
by the defendants for sexual intercourse. When he withdrew, he found that the
teat had parted from the body of the condom. As a result of the fracture, the
claimant became pregnant. The teat was not recovered but the body of the condom
was kept for expert examination. The claimant brought an action in the High
Court, Queens Bench Division, for personal injuries for damages against LRC
Products Ltd as a result of the failed condom under the Consumer Protection Act
1987 on two counts:
- That the fracture of the condom was caused by a weakening of the latex occurring before the condom left the factory.
- The fact of the fracture itself evidenced the existence of a defect for the purposes of the Act.
The
Court held that held that the mere existence of a fracture was, without more,
not probate of a defect. That finding was heavily defendant on the evidence
that condoms do, albeit rarely, regularly fail in use, “persons generally” do
not expect condoms never to fail.
On
the issue of consumer expectations, the reasoning was that despite the fact
that the natural expectation of a consumer would be that the condom would not
fail, such expectations under section 3 are viewed in light of the
circumstances of the product. These circumstances include: the manner in which
and the purposes for which the product was being marketed, it’s get up, the use
of any mark used in relation to the product and any instructions or warnings
given for the product’s use. Since the defendant made no claim of 100%
effectiveness, this should not be supposed by the consumer.
When
tackling the issue of defect, the fact of a fracture in itself did not point to
a defect in the product for which the defendant would be liable under the CPA.
The evidence showed an inexplicable failure.
When
determining the issue on whether the consumer has an obligation to mitigate, it
was decided that the concept of mitigation required a claimant to show that
damage suffered was damage that could not be reasonably avoided. The
reasonableness takes its effect from the fact that the claimant had 72 hours in
which she could take the morning after pill.
Kennedy
J, pointed out on the policy of the law to exclude recovery for the costs of upbringing
of an uncovenanted healthy child. Cases on failed sterilization have been
permitted in relation to the costs of pregnancy and childbirth itself. However
no one questioned whether the case could be based on the CPA since its
liability arises where a product is unsafe. There was no discussion of whether
the product was in fact unsafe or just of poor quality. No evidence was further
noted of an injury other than pregnancy. A claim based on lack of quality would
have a better chance of success.
The
word ‘defective’ is mainly used to describe all the situations which give rise
to receive complaints from the buyer in relation to a product.[17]
In Kenya, the Constitution under Article 46 provides for protection of consumer
rights. The case of Richardson is very vital in guiding the Kenyan courts in
reaching a conclusion as to whether a right under article 46 has been violated.
applies to this case by providing that consumers have the right. The case is
also invaluable in guiding in the definition of a defective good under section
5 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The
Act also provides that if a supplier is required to disclose information under
the Act, the disclosure shall be clear, comprehensible and in accordance with
the standards set under the Kenya Standards Act. The case of Richardson
provides a good example of this because the company manufacturing the condoms
gave clear information about its effectiveness.
Although
consumer protection law is still developing it has made major breakthrough in
regards to the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the enactment
of the Consumer Protection Act 2012. The Constitution
marks a departure from the Repealed
Constitution on the aspect of consumer protection. Consumer rights are
recognized under the Bill of Rights in the new constitution,[18]a
concept that remained alien to the Repealed
Constitution.[19]
The Constitution confers a
positive duty to the Parliament to enact legislation to provide for Consumer
Protection.[20]
It’s upon this mandate that the parliament passed the Consumer Protection Act.
It’s
also important to take cognizance of the fact that the general rules of
international law on consumer protection form part of law of Kenya lieu of Article
2(5)[21]
of the Constitution of Kenya 2010,
and may guide the Kenyan courts in deciding consumer protection cases in
accordance with section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. An example of such
instruments is the UN Guidelines on
Consumer Protection.
However,
it remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the consumer protections
laws. The cases analyzed above will be invaluable in guiding the Kenyan courts
in developing the consumer protection regime in Kenya.
I
acknowledge the following for their contribution.
1.
Barasa
Lorraine Naswa
2.
Kombe
Larry Matawi
3.
Yvonne
Mary Mungai
4.
William
Mbugua
5.
Musau
Mutanda Moses
6.
Sharon
Chemutai Bii
7.
Odhiambo
James
8.
Peace
Mwende Mavindu
9.
Jamila
Chemtai Yesho
10.
Onani
Kevin Moses
11.
Rinah
Nechesa Zahra
12.
Winfred
Odali
13.
Gee
Wanjiru Mwangi
14.
Sheila
Ngithi Mbogo
1. Brobeck,
Stephen, and Robert N. Mayer, eds. Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference
Guide to Consumer Activism: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism.
ABC-CLIO, 2015.
2.
Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act, British Columbia
3.
Constitution
of Kenya, 2010
4.
Consumer
Protection Act No 46 2012
5. D Asher &R Sengupta, State of the Kenyan
Consumer (2012).
6.
Food
Drugs and Chemical Substances Act, Chapter 254 Laws of Kenya
7. Hogg,
Margaret K., Geraint Howells, and David Milman. "Consumers in the
Knowledge-Based Economy (KBE): What creates and/or constitutes consumer
vulnerability in the KBE?." Journal of Consumer Policy 30.2 (2007):
151-158.
8.
Furmston,
Michael. Principles of Commercial Law 2/e. Routledge, 2001.Sale
of Goods Cap 31
9. Mpaka,
Christine. Consumer protection. Oxford University Press, 1992.
10. Weights and Measures Act Cap 513
11. Oughton, David W., John P. Lowry, and Robert M.
Merkin. Limitation of Actions. Informa Law, Garner, Bryan A.
"Black's law dictionary." (2004): 1-1810. 8th Edition
[1]Consumer Protection Act, No. 46 of
2012
[2]Black’s law dictionary 8thedn
[3] Ibid 2ndedn
[4] Article 46 (1) (b); The
constitution of Kenya 2010
[5]Mpaka Christine; Consumer Protection
[6]Consumerism As A Determinant Of
Multinational Product Consumption In Kenya <http://business.uonbi.ac.ke/node/9514>
[7] Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 House of Lords
[8] No. 46 of 2012
[9] 21 Dec 2000
[10]bmlr185m
[12]http://gmignitionmdl.com/accessed 09/05/2016
[13] Page 6 of the Judgment, official English Translation.
[14] Const. of Kenya, 2010, Chapter
four.
[15] Section 3
[16]bpcpa
[17] Principles of Commercial Law Professor Michael Furmston 2nd
Edition 76
[18]Article 46; Constitution of Kenya 2010
[19]D Asher &R Sengupta, State of the Kenyan Consumer 2012 (2012).
[20] Article 46(2); Constitution of Kenya 2010
[21]The general rules of international law shall form part of law of
Kenya
