[2025] KEHC 9683 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9683 (KLR)

The High Court found that the appellant failed to prove her claim for Kshs.320,000/- as the documentary evidence (PExhibit 1) was unclear and the calculations were confusing. The burden of proof remained with the appellant, who did not satisfactorily demonstrate the basis or terms of the alleged loan. Furthermore, the evidence suggested that the appellant was engaged in unlicensed money lending, contrary to the Central Bank of Kenya Act, rendering the transaction illegal and unenforceable. The court held that no enforceable claim could arise from an illegal transaction. The trial court's decision to enter judgment for Kshs.105,800/- was not supported by clear evidence, and the appellant's...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9683 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Leah Wanja Kinuu; Respondent: Carolyne Wanyonyi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 6 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
RK Limo
Legal Topics
Money Lending, Loan Agreements, Burden of Proof, Illegality of Contract, Interest on Loans
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Money Lending Loan Agreements Burden of Proof Illegality of Contract Interest on Loans

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leah Wanja Kinuu

Appellant

Carolyne Wanyonyi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved her claim for refund of Kshs.320,000/- against the respondent to the required standard.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment for Kshs.105,800/- instead of the amount claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to interest and costs on the amount claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the appellant failed to prove her claim for Kshs.320,000/- as the documentary evidence (PExhibit 1) was unclear and the calculations were confusing. The burden of proof remained with the appellant, who did not satisfactorily demonstrate the basis or terms of the alleged loan. Furthermore, the evidence suggested that the appellant was engaged in unlicensed money lending, contrary to the Central Bank of Kenya Act, rendering the transaction illegal and unenforceable. The court held that no enforceable claim could arise from an illegal transaction. The trial court's decision to enter judgment for Kshs.105,800/- was not supported by clear evidence, and the appellant's...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.