https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/24

Ali v Dore (Commercial Case E99467 of 2025) [2026] SCC 24 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 24 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E99467 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM May 22, 2026 Between Abdirahman Ibrahim Ali Claimant and Abdul Kahia Dore Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this suit via a statement of claim dated 29/8/2025 seeking judgment against the claimant for Kshs. 300,000.00/= on the basis that the respondent had procured an LPO but lacked the money to supply the order therein thus he borrowed the amount from the claimant, but the LPO turned out to be fake yet the respondent failed to refund the money. The claimant filed the MPESA transfer confirmations and well as the LPO. 2.The respondents filed a response dated 4/9/2025 and admitted receiving the money. He however pleaded that the parties had entered into a joint venture and the claimant was to invest Kshs. 300,000/= for a supply contract and later receive the benefits. That the respondent was yet to be paid and the present claim was filed prematurely. 3.The matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 4/12/2025, the respondent’s were however not on record. 4.I have seen and considered the pleadings, testimonies, evidence and submissions before court. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven its case as against the respondent. 5.The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities. See the Court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. 6.Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya places the burden of proof of a fact on the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of such fact. 7.It was not denied that the respondent received Kshs. 300,000/= from the claimant. It was also not denied that the same was an investement in the LPO procured by the respondent. The respondent however pleaded that the same was yet to be paid and the claimant prematurely brought the claim. Upon the claimant successfully proving transfer of the money and legal nature of the transfer, the burden shifted to the respondent to sufficiently prove that the LPO was genuine and indeed ongoing. The respondent failed to do so and merely stated that he was yet to be paid. There was nothing to signify that the 150 8.From the evidence on record, though the 2nd respondent testified that he did not know the claimant, it was clear that the parties met and discussed the respondents’ business severally. RW1 testified to having met both the claimant and his wife regarding the business. This collaborated the claimant’s testimony that he would meet the respondent severally in his office in Kikuyu. 9.The explanation given by RW1 as regards the meeting was unsatisfactory. The 2nd respondent could not one end claim that the he did not know the claimant personally, then on the other hand claim that the meetings were to assist his grandson get network connections through the claimant who worked in Safaricom. 10.RW1 confirmed that he was a majority shareholder of the 1st respondent. It was clear that he owned a major position in the 1st respondent company. He confirmed that the money was deposited to the 1st respondent’s account. Though he claimed that the same was for a purchase, there was not a single document to support such a colossal purchase. No receipt was issued to the claimant, no delivery note, no confirmation for collection. He testified that the same was most likely done through an agent. Again, the said agent was never revealed. 11.If at all the claimant could not make a direct purchase to the 1st respondent, would there not be some documentation from the 1st respondent to show the flow of money and goods? I am not satisfied that a purchase of Kshs. 990,000/= would be untraceable. The respondents would normally have such information and documentary evidence in their possession and they ought to have produced the same to support the allegation of purchase. 12.Both parties confirmed that they had met severally over a one-month period. The payment of Kshs. 990,000/= was made a month after the parties met. RW1 confirmed that even the claimant’s wife was interested in doing business with the 1st respondent. Both parties confirmed that they were introduced to each other by the same person, Daniel Ng’ang’a. All these factors tied together lead to the finding that it was more likely that the claimant was interested in investing in or doing business with the respondents, and when that did not work, the respondents evaded the entire deal. 13.I say so further noting that CEXH2 was a receipt from Equity Bank. Though it related to a different transaction, it was significant to this claim. RW1 confirmed that he accompanied the claimant to the bank so that he could make the deposit of Kshs. 1,200,000/= to the 1st respondent. The explanation given was again insufficient. I am not convinced that an owner of a company with more than 300 agents would accompany a stranger to a bank to make payment for a purchase. There was more than the respondents were willing to share and it all points out to the above mentioned conclusion. It is not clear why the venture failed, but it is clear that the respondents failed to repay the claimant the monies paid to them. 14.Going by the above, I find that the claimant has proven his case as against the respondent on a balance of probability and I hereby order as follows: -1.Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the claimant as against the respondents jointly and severally for the sum of Kshs. 990,000/= plus interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.2.The claimant is awarded costs of Kshs. 50,000/=. 15.The respondent is granted 30 days stay of execution It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR