https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/155

Ekirapa v Omilia (Commercial Case E078 of 2026) [2026] SCC 155 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 155 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Malaba Commercial Case E078 of 2026 AZ Ogange, RM July 15, 2026 Between Walter Etila Ekirapa Claimant and Geoffrey Omilia Respondent Judgment 1.Vide a statement of claim dated 19th May 2026 and filed in court on even date the Claimant prays for judgment in his favor for the sum of Kshs. 600,000/= together with costs of the suit. 2.The circumstances leading to the filing of this case are that through a written commitment dated 9th March 2024, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant five heads of cattle which the Respondent’s father had taken from the Claimant several years ago. That the Respondent has since refused to honor his promise despite numerous reminders. That the costs of one cow is Kshs. 120,000/=. 3.The suit is opposed vide a Statement of Response dated 24th June 2026 and filed in court on even date wherein the Respondent denies the claim in its entirety. 4.This matter came up for hearing on 8th July 2026 when the Claimant testified and called two other witnesses. The Respondent equally testified and called one witness. At the close of the Respondent’s case, the Claimant prayed for three days to file his submissions. The Respondent sought to rely on the evidence on record. The court reserved the matter for judgment on 15th July 2026. At the time of writing this judgment, no submissions had been filed by the Claimant. 5.The Claimant’s case is founded on a written agreement executed between himself and the Respondent. Under the agreement, the Respondent undertook to compensate the Claimant by giving five cows. The Respondent in his pleadings does not deny executing the agreement. Rather his defence is that he did not receive any money from the Claimant and that the underlying transaction concerned his late father’s dealing with the Claimant. 6.To the extent that the Respondent seeks to avoid the agreement on grounds of fraud or any other vitiating factor, the law is settled that fraud must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. No particulars of fraud were pleaded, nor was any evidence adduced to prove the same. Consequently, the agreement remains binding upon the parties. 7.The difficulty however lies in the remedy sought. Although the agreement refers to five cows, it does not specify the value of each cow, the breed, age or quality of the cows, nor does it provide a mechanism for determining their value in the event of non-delivery. The Claimant has pleaded that each cow is worth Kshs. 120,000/= and consequently claims Kshs. 600,000/=. However, no valuation report, market survey, expert evidence or any other documentary evidence was produced to establish that the prevailing market value of each cow is Kshs. 120,000/=. The figure appears to have been unilaterally arrived at by the Claimant. 8.A claim founded on the monetary value of specific property is, in essence a claim for special damages. The law is settled that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. While the Claimant has specifically pleaded the sum of Kshs. 600,000/=, he has failed to strictly prove how that figure was arrived at. It was not open for the Claimant to assign a value to the five cows in the absence of evidence or an agreed contractual formula for valuation. 9.The court is therefore unable to quantify the Respondent’s liability in monetary terms. To award the sum claimed would be to engage in speculation which the Court cannot do. It is therefore the finding of the court that the Claimant failed to prove his Claim against the Respondent and the suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Since Parties acted in person, the court assesses costs at Kshs. 2,000/=. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MALABA SMALL CLAIMS COURT THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026.In the Presence ofWalter Etila Ekirapa the Claimant andGeoffrey Omilia the RespondentCourt Assistant: Paul OtienoCourt Assistant/Iteso Interpretor: David KasibaA.Z. OGANGER.M/ADJUDICATOR