https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/61

Macharia v Maina (Commercial Case E106258 of 2025) [2026] SCC 61 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 61 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Milimani Small Claims Court Commercial Case E106258 of 2025 GW Kiamah, RM July 3, 2026 Between Alice Njeri Macharia Claimant and Anthony Mwangi Maina Respondent Judgment 1.The claimant instituted this suit via the statement of claim dated 24/10/2025 seeking judgment against the claimant for Kshs. 458,600/= on the basis that she sold the respondent an excavator on 18/9/2020 and there was a balance on the purchase price. 2.The respondent filed a response dated 23/4/2026 denying any such transaction or balance. It was pleaded that there was no satisfactory evidence and the claimant was put to strict proof. 3.The matter proceeded under Section 30 of the Small Claims Act however, none of the parties submissions were on record. 4.I have seen and considered the pleadings, testimonies, evidence and submissions before court. The main issue for determination is whether the claimed amount was satisfactorily proven. 5.The standard of proof in civil claims is on a balance of probabilities. See the Court of Appeal in Mumbi M'Nabea v David M.Wachira [2016] eKLR. 6.Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya places the burden of proof of a fact on the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of such fact. 7.... 8.The claimant's case was founded on an alleged sale of an excavator to the respondent on 18/9/2020. The respondent categorically denied the transaction and denied owing any balance. 9.I have considered the court record. The claimant only relied on handwritten notes allegedly reflecting payments made by the respondent. Though the notes may have some probative value, they are insufficient in their own to establish the existence of a sale agreement or indebtedness of the sum claimed. For instance, there was no written sale agreement or any correspondence between the parties acknowledging the transaction to allude to a possibility of an oral contract. There were also no bank statements or MPESA extracts/screenshots of the listed down transactions, or even the copies of the cheques allegedly issued by the respondent. The claimant did not also produce any documents showing a trail connecting the respondent to the purchase. 10.As such, I do find that the notes were not corroborated by any other evidence. It then follows that there was no sufficient proof that a transaction occurred between the parties and there was an outstanding balance arising from it. I say so noting that the burden of proof remained with the claimant and did not shift even when the respondent denied the transaction. In Palace Investment Ltd v Geoffrey Kariuki Mwenda & Another [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that a party bearing the burden of proof must adduce evidence of such quality that the court can conclude that the claim is more likely than not to be true. As such, the burden of proof in civil matters remains with the party asserting the claim, and where the evidence is evenly balanced or insufficient, the party bearing that burden fails. 11.In the circumstnaces, the claim is found to be unmerited having filed to infer any transaction involving an excavator as claimed, or any balance owed to the claimant. Consequently, the claim is dismissed with costs to the respondent assessed at Kshs. 15,000/=. 12.The claimant is awarded 30 days stay of execution. It is so decreed. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA CTS THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026HON. GLADYS .W. KIAMAHRESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR