https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7120

Gafra Holdings Ltd v Freight In Time Ltd (Small Claims Appeal E160 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7120 (KLR) (Civ) (22 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7120 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Small Claims Appeal E160 of 2025 AN Ongeri, J May 22, 2026 Between Gafra Holdings Limited Appellant and Freight In Time Ltd Respondent (Being an Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. J.W. Munene – RM in Milimani Small Claims Court Case No. E8285 of 2024 delivered on 13th November, 2024) Judgment 1.The Appellant was the Respondent in Milimani SCCC No. E8285 of 2024 where the Respondent was claiming USD 5,346.09 for shipping services the Respondent provided for the Appellant’s consignment. 2.The Respondent provided the services and issued an invoice for USD 4,650.51 which the Appellant failed to pay. 3.The Respondent’s claim was for a total of USD 5,346.09 which included interest of 15%. 4.The Appellant alleged that the Respondent never issued him with any invoice as alleged and denied knowledge of the claim. 5.The Respondent delivered various waybills and delivery notes showing various consignments were delivered. The invoices were in USD and Sterling Pounds. 6.There was an invoice dated 28th May 2023 for USD 4,933. 7.The trial Court entered judgment against the Appellant in the sum of USD 4,623 plus costs and interest at court rates. 8.The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the said Judgment on the following grounds:-i.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in determining in favour of the Respondent by essentially granting the Respondent the sum of USD 4,623 despite a determination by the Honourable Magistrate that the Respondent did not plead nor prove the amount.ii.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in not substantially considering the Appellant’s case, evidence and submissions.iii.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in not addressing and making a determination on all the issues brought forward for determination by the Appellant.iv.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in placing reliance on a fatally defective supporting Affidavit.v.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in entertaining and considering a further Affidavit that is anchored on a non-existent statement or Affidavit contrary to the Law.vi.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in relying on irrelevant evidentiary documents to arrive at her finding.vii.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in not drawing a distinction between a company and a business name.viii.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that Invoice dated 28th May 2022 was an invoice arising from services offered to the Appellant, subject to the Claim before Court.ix.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in not finding and determining that the alleged admission of USD 4,623 was of a different amount from the amount in the Invoice being USD 4,933, the amount as pleaded by the Respondent in its statement of Claim being USD 5346.09 and USD 4650.51. The Honourable Magistrate, further to granting an amount not pleaded nor proved, considered contradictory evidence contrary to the Law.x.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the email dated 28th June 2022 was from the Appellant.xi.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the Claimant produced delivery notes showing the various consignments delivered on the Appellant’s behalf.xii.That the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that the invoices in Sterling Pounds were invoices from the Respondent to the Appellant.xiii.That the learned Magistrate’s Judgment was thus factually unsound. 9.The parties filed written submissions as follows; The appellant, Gafra Holdings Limited, submitted that it has preferred this appeal against the whole judgment of the Milimani Small Claims Court delivered on November 13, 2024, which awarded the respondent, Freight in Time Limited, USD 4,623 plus costs and interest. 10.The initial claim arose from an alleged September 2022 agreement for shipping and transportation services, where the respondent claimed the appellant failed to settle an invoice of USD 4,650.51, leading to a total claim of USD 5,346.09 inclusive of interest. 11.In response, the appellant maintained that it had no outstanding invoices with the respondent and argued that the respondent was wrongfully utilizing shipping documentation belonging to a separate legal entity, Kamuramba Farm, to unjustly attach liability to the appellant. 12.The appellant’s submissions are mainly on two issues, First, the appellant contends that the trial magistrate committed a reversible error in law and fact by completely failing to evaluate and address the pertinent issues and evidence raised during the trial. 13.Specifically, the appellant argues that the trial court ignored its challenge against a further supporting affidavit filed by the respondent, which was completely uncommissioned, in direct violation of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, rendering it legally incompetent and devoid of evidential value. 14.Additionally, the appellant asserts that the trial court improperly relied on a "without prejudice" settlement letter as an admission of liability, which is strictly inadmissible under Section 23(1) of the Evidence Act because no binding agreement had been concluded from it. 15.The appellant also emphasizes that a critical analysis of the respondent's own documentation reveals that the Master Air Waybill numbers, weight, dates, and carton counts perfectly match transactions handled exclusively for Kamuramba Farm, proving that the respondent sued the wrong party. 16.Second, the appellant argues that the trial court's total omission to evaluate its evidence and submissions constitutes a severe violation of its constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya. 17.By adopting the respondent's narrative wholesale without judicial consideration of the defence, the trial court acted contrary to established natural justice principles, rendering the resulting judgment a nullity. 18.Furthermore, the appellant points out severe contradictions and mathematical errors within the lower court's judgment. 19.While the respondent’s statement of claim asserted a September 2022 contract and sought special damages based on an elusive invoice that was never actually produced in court, the magistrate ultimately entered judgment based on a June 2022 email that predated the alleged contract. 20.The appellant notes that this email does not even indicate it emanated from or was addressed to the appellant, carries an irrelevant figure, and lists Kamuramba Farm as the client. 21.The appellant further submitted that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and the magistrate erred by granting an award after explicitly finding that the respondent had failed to plead or justify the claimed sums. 22.Consequently, the appellant urged the appellate Court allow the appeal, set aside the Small Claims Court judgment in its entirety, and award costs to the appellant. 23.The Respondent, Freight in Time Ltd, opposed the appeal filed by the Appellant, Gafra Holdings Limited. 24.The Respondent submitted that the appeal seeks to overturn a judgment delivered on November 13, 2024, by the Milimani Small Claims Court, which awarded the Respondent USD 4,623 plus the costs of the suit. 25.The Respondent maintains that the appeal is entirely without merit and should be dismissed because the Trial Court’s judgment was founded directly on the Appellant's clear and unequivocal written admission of indebtedness. 26.The background of the dispute traces back to shipping and transportation services requested by the Appellant and provided by the Respondent. 27.Upon completion, the Respondent issued an invoice that went unpaid. 28.On June 28, 2022, the Appellant sent an email explicitly admitting the debt of USD 4,623 and merely requesting additional time to settle the amount. 29.The Respondent submitted that because the debt remained unpaid despite this acknowledgment, the Trial Court reviewed the evidence and entered judgment for the Respondent. 30.The Respondent argues that the Appellant’s current appeal offers no lawful basis to disturb this decision and is simply an avoidance tactic designed to stall the execution of the decree. 31.In addressing the main legal issues, the Respondent contends that the Trial Court did not err in entering judgment based on the admission. 32.Although the Respondent had initially pleaded a higher claim amount, the Trial Court acted cautiously and reasonably by disregarding disputed invoices and relying solely on the specific sum explicitly admitted by the Appellant in writing. 33.Under Section 17 of the Evidence Act and established Kenyan jurisprudence, such as Choitram v Nazari and Guardian Bank Limited v Jambo Biscuits Kenya Limited, a clear and obvious written admission in correspondence is fully binding and sufficient to found a judgment without the necessity of a full trial. 34.The Respondent points out that the Appellant has never alleged forgery, claimed the email was sent in error, or provided any contemporaneous communication denying the debt. 35.Furthermore, the Respondent argues that the Appellant's procedural objections regarding affidavits and forms carry no weight, as Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act and precedents like Ogwari v Hersi empower the court to depart from strict rules of evidence to achieve substantive and expeditious justice rather than allowing technical lapses to override the truth. 36.Finally, regarding the allocation of costs, the Respondent asserts its entitlement to the costs of both the initial suit and the appeal. 37.Relying on the recognized legal principle that costs follow the event to compensate a successful litigant for the trouble and expense of prosecuting a case, the Respondent notes it was forced into litigation only because the Appellant failed to honor its own clear commitments. 38.In conclusion, the Respondent urges the appellate Court to reject the Appellant's evasive strategies, protect the substance of justice, and uphold the Small Claims Court's judgment in full with costs. 39.The issues for determination in this appeal are as follows;i.Whether the trial court erred by entering judgment for the Respondent based on an admission contained in the Appellant’s email of 28th June 2022, andii.Whether the procedural technicalities raised by the Appellant, specifically regarding the form of affidavits, invalidate the proceedings. 40.The Court of Appeal in the case of Choitram v Nazari [1984] eKLR established the principle that for a judgment to be entered on admission, the admission must be “plain and obvious, as plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable”. 41.An admission must be unequivocal and not require copious interpretation to discern its meaning. 42.Applying this test to the facts, the Appellant’s email dated 28th June 2022, which explicitly acknowledged a debt of USD 4,623 and sought additional time to settle it, constitutes a clear and unequivocal admission of liability. 43.The Appellant has not alleged that this email was forged or sent in error, nor has it produced any contemporaneous communication retracting this admission. 44.Although the Appellant argues that this letter might have been a “without prejudice” settlement negotiation, the law is clear that the mere marking of a document as “without prejudice” is not decisive; the test is whether the communication was part of a genuine attempt to settle a dispute. 45.The email in question was a direct response to a demand for payment and contained an admission of a specific liquidated sum, not an offer to compromise a disputed claim, thus rendering it admissible as evidence under Section 23(1) of the Evidence Act. 46.Regarding the Appellant’s procedural complaints, Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act explicitly provides that the Court is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence. 47.The Small Claims Court was designed to depart from strict procedural rules to achieve substantive and expeditious justice, and technical lapses regarding the commissioning of affidavits should not override the truth where a clear admission exists. 48.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Milimani Small Claims Court in SCCC No. E8285 of 2024 is hereby affirmed in its entirety. 49.The Appellant shall bear the costs of this appeal as costs follow the event. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026.A. N. ONGERIJUDGEIn the presence of:No appearance for the AppellantMr Chacha for the RespondentChrispine – Court Assistant