https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/162

Hillebrand Kenya Limited v Wrens Enterprises Limited (Commercial Case E97218 of 2025) [2026] SCC 162 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 162 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E97218 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM July 17, 2026 Between Hillebrand Kenya Limited Claimant and Wrens Enterprises Limited Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this claim vide the statement of claim dated 9/6/2025 seeking judgment against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 148,655/= plus costs and interests on the basis that it supplied the respondent goods and services and thereafter raised invoices between November 2023 and September 2024 yet the same remained unsettled despite demand. That the respondent undertook to settle the debt in installments of Kshs. 20,000/= vide letter dated 21/11/2024 but no such payment was done thus the filing of this claim. 2.The respondent filed the response dated 15/10/2025 and averred that it engaged the claimant to clear and store some soft drinks and duly paid for the services. It was averred that it had made overpayments to KRA on behalf of the claimant. That though the claimant relied on the letter dated 21/11/2024, it did not disclose that the money paid to KRA was never captured in the statement of accounts. That the claim was thus invalid. 3.The claim proceeded under Section 30 of the SCC Act and the claimant filed submissions dated 8/5/2026 whereas the respondent’s were dated 12/5/1026. I have considered those submissions alongside the pleadings and evidence on record. 4.The main issue for determination is whether the claimant has proven its claim as against the respondent on a balance of probabilities. See the court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M. Wachira [2016] eKLR. It also trite that he who alleges must prove as provided for in Section 107 and 108 of the Small Claims Court Act (SCC Act). 5.It was not disputed that the claimant offered the respondent storage services and raised various invoices. The respondent however averred that the amounts claimed were settled through payments made to KRA on the claimant's behalf. I do note that the burden of proof shifted to the respondent to establish the nature and extent of the alleged payments and how those payments related to the outstanding invoices. 6.The respondent produced a KRA receipt reflecting a payment of Kshs. 104,519/=. The respondent also produced email correspondences between the parties indicating that the issue of KRA payments was actively under discussion. Vide email dated 9/10/2025, the respondent requested the claimant to share the total amount of duties paid so that proof of payment could be forwarded. The claimant responded vide email sent on 13/10/2025 and requested the respondent to provide proof of payment and indicated that KRA would only recognize the first payment received. I do note that the claimant indicated that from its records, payment had already been completed and the corresponding KRA receipt obtained. 7.I do note that whereas the communication did not proof that the Kshs. 104,519/= paid to KRA was intended to offset or settle the invoices that are the subject of this suit, the existence of the KRA receipt was proof that a payment of Kshs. 104,519/= was indeed made. Notably, the claimant did not dispute the authenticity of the receipt and acknowledged the existence of issues relating to KRA payments. As such, equity demands that the respondent be given credit for that amount.The respondent did not however establish that any further payments were subsequently made towards settlement of the debt which had been previously admitted. 8.In the end, I find that the claim was partly successful noting that a balance of Kshs. 44,136/= was not accounted for. To that end, I hereby order as follows: -1.Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the claimant as against the respondent for the sum of Kshs. 44,136.00/=.2.The sum shall attract interest at court rate from the date of judgment till payment in full.3.The claimant is awarded costs of Kshs. 10,000/=. 9.The respondent is granted a 30-day stay of execution.It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026HON. GLADYS W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR