https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/76

Lumba v Board of Management of Mackinnon Road Girls High School aka Mackinnon Road High School (Commercial Case E174 of 2026) [2026] SCC 76 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 76 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E174 of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM June 26, 2026 Between Anastacia Zaina Lumba Claimant and The Board of Management of Mackinnon road Girls High School aka Mackinnon Road High School Respondent Judgment 1.It is not in dispute that the Claimant was awarded a tender by the Respondent for the supply goods to the Respondent. What is contended is the amount owed to the Claimant as the balance for the goods supplied. The Claimant states that what is owed is Kshs. 549,550/-. The Respondent on the other hand states that the Claimant is only owed Kshs. 340,650/- as per the handing over report as at 6th May, 2024 filed by the Respondent. The Respondent has also relied on a statement dated 10th March,2026 which also state the same. 2.It is the Respondent’s submission that the Claimant has failed to prove delivery and acknowledgement of some of the goods. Further, that some of the invoices especially invoice no. 256 and 249 contains alterations on the date and amount respectively. On that basis the Respondent submits that the Claimant has failed to prove the amount of Kshs 549,550/- claimed and that the court should only uphold the amount of Kshs 340,650/-. 3.In support of their case, the Claimant filed various delivery notes, invoices and Local Purchase Orders. Additionally, the Claimant has also filed a response to demand letter dated 12th February 2026 by the school principal of the Respondent requesting for particulars of the debt of Kshs. 549,550/-. The Claimant also relies on a commitment letter dated 24th April 2026 by the principle of the Respondent in which she formally commits to full payment of the outstanding debt of Kshs. 549,550/- and proceeded to make a settlement proposal that was rejected by the Claimant. This letter has not been disowned by the Respondent and thus stands uncontroverted as evidence of the Respondent’s admission of the debt owing to the Claimant to be Kshs. 549,550/-. Similarly, the Respondent on 30th April 2026 sent another letter proposing another settlement plan on how they can pay the debt of Kshs. 549,550/-. 4.The Respondent have relied on a handing over report dated 6th May 2024 and a report dated 10th March 2026 all of which have been superseded by the correspondence from the Respondent, earlier herein referenced, filed by the Claimant that have not been rebutted by the Respondent. 5.As such, from the evidence on record, this court finds that the amount owing to the Claimant is Kshs. 549,550/-. The Claimant has produced consistent and cogent evidence of the debt that has not been dislodged by the Respondent’s evidence. The Claimant has therefore proved its case on a balance of probabilities and judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 549,550/. being the amount claimed. 6.What therefore remains is for this court to determine how the judgment debt is to be repaid by the Respondent. The Applicable principles for defrayment of the judgement sum in instalments were set out in Freight Forwarders Ltd v Elsek & Elsek (K) Ltd (2012) Eklr, as follows;a.the debtor is unable to pay in lump sumb.the debtor can pay by reasonable monthly instalmentsc.the application is made in utmost good faith 7.From the evidence on record, the letters dated 24th April 2026 and 30th April 2026 evidence that the Respondent is unable to pay the entire lumpsum due to financial constraints and has all through been ready to settle the amount via installments. They have made various proposals which have been rejected by the Claimant. From the original debt of Kshs. 3,640,800/- the Respondent has paid Kshs. 3,091,250/-. The Respondent committed to full settlement of the outstanding sum on 24th April 2026. 8.Under section Section 36(1)(a) of the Small Claims Court Act, the court is expressly empowered to order payment of a judgment debt in a lump sum or in such instalments and at such times as the Court may determine. This provision grants the court discretionary authority to structure payment terms without requiring the parties' consent, aligning with the Act’s objective of delivering expedient and practical justice. 9.In the case of Equity Bank Ltd v Bruce Mutie Mutuku t/a Diani Tour Travel [2016] eKLR, the High Court held that courts retain inherent authority to order instalment payments where justified, even absent party consent, provided the decision is rational and grounded in fairness. Similarly, in Muriithi v Waweru [1982] KLR 150, the Court of Appeal emphasized that instalment orders are a legitimate exercise of discretion to balance the interests of both parties. 10.Thus in the present case, this court orders as follows;a.Judgment is entered for the Claimant against the Respondent for Kshs. 549,550/.b.The judgment debt of Kshs. 549,550/- shall earn interest at court rates from date herein.c.The Respondent shall pay an initial lumpsum payment of Kshs. 149,550/- on or before the 31st of July 2026.d.The balance of the decretal sum shall be defrayed in 8 equal monthly instalments of Kshs. 80,000/- payable on or before the last day of every month beginning September 2026.e.In default of payment of any one instalment, execution to issue as against the Respondent.f.Parties to bear their own costs. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE……26TH …. DAY OF……JUNE………2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;…N/A……. for Claimant;…N/A… for Respondent C/A EstherSIGNED BY/FOR:THE JUDICIARY OF KENYAHON. THERESA N. MWANGEKAMOMBASA SMALL CLAIMS COURTSMALL CLAIMS COURTDATE: 2026-06-26 08:57:01