https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/126

John v Akera & another (Commercial Case E1284 of 2025) [2026] SCC 126 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 126 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E1284 of 2025 TN Mwangeka, RM June 9, 2026 Between John Claimant and Brighton Akera 1st Respondent BelforTech Consultants 2nd Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant seeks judgment in the sum of Kshs. 56,000/- agansit the respondents whom he claims failed to remit to him his chama contributions. It is the claimant’s case that when asked, the 1st respondent claimed that the money had gone to the wrong till number. The 2nd respondent is alleged to be a member of the said chama. 2.The 1st respondent in their response to claim admits running an online chama and being the secretary. Further that, the claimant was the last person on the list to receive his round but most members quit the group before paying him back his money which was being sent through the 2nd respondent, thus the 1st respondent never received any money herself from the members. 3.The 2nd respondent on their part pleaded that the company was not a party to the chama agreement, was not a member of the chama, and did not receive, hold, or disburse any of the chama's funds, including the Ksh 56,000 claimed by the applicant. Further, the use of the name "Belfor Tech" for the chama's till account was coincidental and done without the company's knowledge, consent, or involvement. The company and the chama are separate and distinct entities. 4.On 28th April 2026, the matter proceeded for hearing in the absence of the respondents. 5.The court is reminded of its duty to scrutinize the evidence on record as against the legal burden imposed to prove all that is alleged as posited in sections 107 to 109 of the Evidence Act and has thus distilled the following as issues for determination;1.Whether the claimant has proven that the 1st respondent withheld Kshs. 56,000.2.Whether the claimant has proven that the 2nd respondent withheld Kshs. 56,000.3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. Whether the Claimant has Proven that the 1st Respondent Withheld Kshs. 56,000. 6.It is the claimant’s evidence that every Tuesday members of the chama received Kshs. 3,000/- and that he was the last in the merry go round. When his turn came, the 1st respondent said that the money had gone to a wrong number. At the time his contributions were at Kshs. 56,000/-. The claimant has however not attached any proof of said contributions totaling to Kshs. 56,000/- in the form of chama records or Mpesa transactions. What is present as evidence that has not been controverted by the 1st respondent are WhatsApp messages between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent wherein the 1st Respondent admits to having Kshs. 51,000/- belonging to the claimant. I therefore find the 1st Respondent indebted to the claimant for the sum of Kshs. 51,000/-. Whether the Claimant has Proven that the 2nd Respondent Withheld Kshs. 56,000. 7.The claimant submitted that the 2nd respondent was a member of their chama. The 1st respondent stated that the 2nd respondent was used to send money to the members of the chama. The 2nd respondent has denied being a member of the chama, receiving, holding, or disbursing any of the chama's funds, including the Ksh 56,000 claimed by the claimant and attributes the use of the name "Belfor Tech" for the chama's till account to coincidence and done without the company's knowledge, consent, or involvement. 8.The claimant did not provide this court with the registration and ownership particulars of the till number in question for the court to interrogate whether the said till number belongs to the 2nd respondent and was operated by or on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Without such evidence and in the face of denial of liability by the 2nd respondent, no direct nexus has been proven between the 2nd respondent and the subject till number in question. Whether the Claimant is Entitled to the Reliefs Sought. 9.Since as outlined earlier in this judgment the 1st respondent admitted to having Kshs. 51,000/- belonging to the claimant, the claimant is entitled to judgment on admission for Kshs. 51,000/- against the 1st respondent. 10.In the end, judgment is entered in favor of the claimant against the 1st respondent for Kshs. 51,000/- together with interest from date of judgment. The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the claimant at Kshs. 5,000/-. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;Mr. Amakobe….for Claimant;N/A…… for Respondent;C/A Esther.Signed By/for:HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKA