A contractor involved in Migori’s Piny Luo cultural festival says a bill of KSh3.8 million has turned into a costly and prolonged dispute, with questions now being raised over who authorised the work, who received the benefit, and who should settle the outstanding amount.
At the centre of the disagreement are claims and counterclaims involving Achuora, Elgon Group and Mercy Wamoto. The contractor maintains that services were delivered for the festival under an agreed arrangement, but payment has not been made in full despite repeated follow-ups.
The dispute has exposed the risks suppliers face when large public-facing events are organised through multiple players, including county officials, event coordinators, private firms and intermediaries. In such arrangements, contractors can find themselves caught between parties who each deny responsibility once invoices fall due.
The KSh3.8 million claim
According to documents and correspondence seen by this publication, the contractor’s claim stands at KSh3.8 million for work Muya and associates gain Sh4.7bn on Family Bank listingallegedly undertaken in connection with the Piny Luo festival.
The contractor says the assignment involved [insert nature of services: tents, staging, sound, catering, transport, branding, accommodation or other services] and that the work was completed after instructions were issued by representatives linked to the event.
However, the key question remains: who signed off on the engagement?
The contractor alleges that commitments were made by individuals acting on behalf of the organisers. But as the payment dispute has intensified, the parties named in the matter have reportedly pointed to each other over responsibility for the debt.
Achuora’s position
Achuora’s position, according to sources familiar with the dispute, is that [insert verified response or denial]. The position appears to be that any payment obligation should be traced to the party that formally contracted the supplier or controlled the relevant budget.
If this position is maintained, it would place renewed focus on the paperwork: purchase orders, local service orders, contracts, delivery notes, invoices, approvals and payment vouchers.
Without a clear written trail, the contractor may face an uphill task proving not only that the work was done but also the exact entity legally responsible for payment.
Elgon Group under scrutiny
Elgon Group has also been drawn into the dispute after allegations that it played a role in the planning, coordination or execution of the festival-related work.
The company’s role should be established through verifiable records, including its contract terms, scope of work and any authority it had to engage suppliers on behalf of the event.
Elgon Group’s response is that [insert verified response]. If the company disputes liability, it should clarify whether it was an organiser, subcontractor, consultant, sponsor, logistics partner or merely a third party connected to the event.
That distinction could determine whether the contractor’s claim is directed at the right party.
Mercy Wamoto’s response
Mercy Wamoto has similarly been named in the disagreement, with the contractor alleging that she was involved in discussions surrounding the engagement and payment process.
Wamoto’s response is that [insert verified response or “she had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication”].
Her role, if any, must be separated from the broader dispute. Being present in discussions or assisting with coordination does not automatically create legal liability unless there is evidence that she personally contracted the supplier, issued instructions with authority, guaranteed payment or acted as an authorised representative.
A contractor caught in the middle
For the contractor, the dispute is no longer simply about an unpaid invoice. It is about cash flow, workers’ wages, supplier debts and the financial strain caused by delivering services before payment is secured.
The case illustrates a recurring problem in event procurement: suppliers are often asked to mobilise quickly, sometimes on verbal assurances, only to discover later that no single party accepts ownership of the bill.
Where several actors are involved, suppliers should insist on a written contract identifying the client, scope of work, payment schedule, authorised signatories and dispute-resolution process. They should also retain proof of delivery, photographs, messages, signed completion certificates and all correspondence.
Demand for transparency
The KSh3.8 million claim now raises wider questions for the organisers of the Piny Luo festival and any public institutions associated with it.
Who approved the contractor’s work? Was there a formal procurement process? Was a budget allocated? Were funds released? If so, who was responsible for paying the supplier?
Until those questions are answered with documents rather than accusations, the contractor’s bill will remain a symbol of a festival dispute that has moved from celebration to controversy.
All parties named in this story should be given a fair opportunity to provide documentary evidence and respond to the allegations before publication. This article will be updated once written responses, contracts, invoices and payment records are made available.
