https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8520

Mugambi v Jowyn Credit Ltd (Civil Appeal E1205 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8520 (KLR) (Civ) (15 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8520 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E1205 of 2024 LP Kassan, J June 15, 2026 Between Irene Kathure Mugambi Appellant and Jowyn Credit Limited Respondent Judgment 1.This is an appeal from a small claims Court that touches on a contractual relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. The history of this matter is that the Respondent granted the Appellant loans on several occasions and a dispute arose on alleged nonpayment of the last loan. The Appellant contends that she paid all the moneys to the Respondent. Parties proceeded to file documents without testifying and so this Court will rely on the filed documents and statements. 2.The issue raised on jurisdiction of this Court to hear an appeal emanating from a small claims Court has long been settled. I have separately held that wrong application of facts or evidence by a trial Court may be construed to be a matter of law and besides nothing can preclude a High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over a small Claims Court. 3.The most important document that this Court finds relevant in deciding this appeal is a handwritten letter dated the 19th day of February 2021 by the Appellant. In this letter, the Appellant acknowledges that she was indebted to the tune of Ksh254,725 and was willing to repay the said amount within three months. To further prove that this amount is owed, an instrument to guarantee this amount was executed by one Lucy Gatwiri on the 19th day of February 2021. Lucy Gatwiri, the Appellant’s guarantor was not called to dispute this document. This is further corroborated by the Respondent’s email dated the 24th day of February 2021 in which the Appellant acknowledged the existence of the loan and reiterated her commitment to repay with a further request for a waiver. The Appellant does not dispute these three documents which were admitted as exhibits and so the Court has no reason to deviate from consideration them. 4.Having found that there was a clear acknowledgment of the outstanding loan of Ksh 254,725, what remains is whether this amount was cleared or not. From the records, there is no evidence that this amount was paid in full. The Respondent admitted that only Ksh47,000 was paid. The burden of prove was upon the Appellant to prove that the loan was cleared- and she has failed. 5.The Appellant claimed that she was forced to sign the disputed loan agreement which she signed for fear that she would be sacked by her employer if it is disclosed that she had defaulted in loan payment. Dismissals from service does not entail the reason of failure to pay loan because loans applications are personal affairs that employers should not be entangled with. The law on reasons for dismissals are clear and defined by the Act. It is not just enough to say one was coerced for the court to believe it to avoid misuse of the word coercion. Evidence must be adduced to prove coercion and the very fact that the Appellant benefited from loan advanced to her weakens her case of being intimidated. 6.The issue of general damages for breach of contract was well captured by the trial magistrate just to add that there is no need to award damages under this limb because the Respondent has already benefited from the interest earned from the loan advanced to the Appellant. In other words, the interest ameliorates the said breach of contract. 7.The conclusion of the above is that the trial Court arrived at a correct decision and so the appeal is dismissed with costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.HON L P KASSANJUDGEIn the presence of;Mugwe for AppellantNasimiyu for RespondentRuth – Court Assistant