Chabeda v Munywoki t/a Emba Safaris & Car Rentals & another (Claim E97630 of 2025) [2026] SCC 169 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment)

Chabeda v Munywoki t/a Emba Safaris & Car Rentals & another (Claim E97630 of 2025) [2026] SCC 169 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 169 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Claim E97630 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM July 17, 2026 Between Peter Sagwa Chabeda Claimant and Maureen Mwikali Munywoki T/A Emba Safaris & Car Rentals 1st Respondent Moses Kasujja 2nd Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 14/7S/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for Kshs. 60,000/= on the basis that he hired motor vehicle KDB 324J for 10 days at a rate of Kshs. 6,000/= per day and fully paid Kshs. 60,000/= on 14/12/2025. That upon taking the subject vehicle, he discovered that the same was not in good condition and returned it the following day as the door was not closing, and the back seat was rocking and unstable. That he claimed for a full refund and though the respondents undertook to refund him in 14 days, they failed to and the money remained owing. 2.The respondent filed a response dated 7/10/2025 and admitted the agreement. It was however denied that the vehicle was faulty and the respondents averred that the claimant had inspected the subject vehicle before paying and leaving with it, and it was not possible that he could have paid for a defective vehicle. It was averred that the claimant had already utilized one day at Kshs. 10,000/=, and the claim for Kshs. 60,000/= was denied. 3.The claim proceeded under Section 30 of The Small Claims Court Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 26/1/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 8/10/2025. 4.I have considered the submissions on record as well as the pleadings and documents before this court. The main issue for determination is whether the claimant proved the claim for Kshs. 60,000/= 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 in dispute that the claimant rented the subject vehicle for 6 days at a daily rate of Kshs. 10,000/=. It was also not in dispute that the claimant paid Kshs. 60,000/= being the total amount for the hired days. Further, it was not in dispute that the claimant returned the subject vehicle the next day on account of unsuitability. 8.Though the 1st respondent challenged the claim for mechanical issues, I do note that the claimant’s case was that the door was not closing well, and the back seat was rocking and unstable. The issue was therefore not mobility/usability of the vehicle, but suitability. Though the respondent claimed that the claimant had inspected the vehicle before paying, such allegation was unsupported. Further, the defects complained of could have been missed until the vehicle was used. For instance, it would not have been easy to note a rocking and unstable back seat until the vehicle was in use. 9.Noting that the respondent did not dispute that the vehicle was returned a day later, I do find the claim to be awardable. The 1st respondent did not also deny that she undertook to repay the amounts within 14 days. 10.I do however note that the claimant utilized the vehicle for a day. There was nothing to show that the claimant communicated the dissatisfaction at the earliest opportunity and neither was there an explanation given as to why the vehicle was not returned on the same day. 11.As such, I find that the sum of Kshs. 10,000/= is deductible from the total payment of Kshs. 60,000/=. 12.As regards the 2nd respondent, I do find that the claimant did not establish any contractual relationship with him noting that payment and communication were between the claimant and 1st respondent. As such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to refund the payment. 13.The upshot is that the claim is partly successful. To that end, I hereby order as follows: -1.Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the claimant as against the 1st respondent for the sum of Kshs. 50,000/=.2.The amount shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.3.The claimant is awarded costs of the claim assessed at Kshs. 7,000/=. The same shall be settled by the 1st respondent only. 14.The 1st respondent is granted 30 days stay of execution.It is so decreed. DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI via CTS this 17th Day of July 2026HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR